SAILEN CHANDA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order, dated 31.3.03, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Tinsukia in Criminal Appeal No. 22 (2) of 2002 is in challenge in this revision petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC').

(2.) The prosecution case as revealed during the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows:- On 3.7.98, the Food Inspector (PW1) visited the grocery shop owned by the petitioners at Tinsukia and he purchased six hundred grams of iodised salt after observing all formalities as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the PFA Act') and the Rules thereunder and by paying Rs.1.50 only as the price of the purchased iodised salt. Though the Food Inspector requested some of the customers, available in the said shop to join him as witnesses with regard to taking of the said sample, the said customers refused to oblige. Therefore, one Mr. Tajmul Hussain (PW 2), who accompanied the Food Inspector, agreed to be the witness and accordingly, the sample was taken in his presence by observing all the formalities. The sample was divided in three equal parts and each of the said parts were put in three separate clean and dry polythine bags which were tightly closed. Subsequently, one part of the sample along with the memo was sent to the Public Analyst keeping the other two parts with the local Health authority. The Public Analyst examined the sample and submitted the report indicating therein, that the iodised salt did not conform to the standard. The Public Analyst's report is as follows :-

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Tinsukia by his judgment and order, dated 19.3.02, passed in case No. 34 of 1998 convicted the petitioners, under Sections 7/16 of the PFA Act and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer RI for one month.