ABHIMANYU DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of the Appellant judgment dated 28 -8 -1985 passed by Sri B. Panigrahi, Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1985 upholding the conviction and sentence dated 29 -1 -1985 passed by Sri G.C. Chopdar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar, in 2(c) C.C. No. 1 of 1984 convicting the Petitioner under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and awarding no sentence for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated is that the accused (Petitioner) Abhimanyu Dash was having a grocery shop at Patna Bazar and he was selling articles of food including mustard oil. On 23 -11 -1983 at about 3.00 p. m. Niranjan Behera (P.W. 2). Food Inspector, Keonjhar visited the grocery shop of the Petitioner and gave his identity to the accused and demanded his food licence for check. The Petitioner did not have the food licence. The food Inspector (P.W. 2) suspected the mustard oil exposed for sale to be adulterated and after giving due notice purchased 750 grams of mustard oil on payment of Rs. 13/ - for food analysis. After purchasing the mustard oil, P.W. 2 divided the same into three equal parts and kept the same in clean dry glass bottles and one part was sent to the Public Analyst to Government of Orissa for analysis along with memorandum of specimen impression of seal by registered post. The remaining two parts were made over to the C.D.M.O., Keonjhar. Vide his report marked Ext. 6, the Public Analyst found the sample of mustard oil to be adulterated. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, P.W. 2 prepared the prosecution report and got the sanction of the C.D.M.O. The prosecution report was ultimately submitted by the C.D.M.O. on 30 -1 -1984 and on the same day the Court took the cognizance under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii). Thus, the Petitioner stood his trial and was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) THE lower Courts have the finding that the formalities contained in Section 10(7) of the P.F.A. Act have been complied with and hence, the collection of the sample is in accordance with law. It was also held by the lower Courts that the mustard oil was proved to be adulterated and that the prosecution allegation that the Petitioner did not have the valid licence for the year 1983 has been established.