JASKARAN LODHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO , questions have been raised in this criminal revision:

(2.) THE allegation brought against the accused is that he sold adulterated "Mustard Oil" to the Food Inspector on 23 -3 -78. On obtaining a report of the Public Analyst dated 27 -4 -78 the Food Inspector upon obtaining permission from the Chief Medical and Health Officer lodged the complaint against the petitioner and arrayed 4 other persons as accused. The accused appeared in court on 14 -8 -78 and lodged an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for sending a part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The prayer was allowed, the Local (Health) Authority was directed to forward one part of the sample kept by the said authority and on its due production in court the learned Magistrate ascertained that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 11 of "the Act" were intact and there was no tampering with the signature and accordingly despatched it to the Director for submission of report and also to express opinion "whether the sample does or does not conform to the standard of Mustard Oil". On 3 -10 -78 the learned Magistrate received the report of the Director dated 15 -9 -78 setting forth the result of the analysis along with the opinion that the sample of Mustard Oil was not adulterated but the container was suspected to be tampered with. It may be noted that the report clearly shows that the article of food was in a condition fit for analysis and was analysed by the Director.

(3.) HEARD Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. The learned Counsel submits that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction vested in him by law to send the third part of the sample to the Director for fresh analysis. The learned Counsel submits that the first report of the Director should be acted upon as the date and the opinion clearly indicate that the food was not adulterated. Pointing out to the second report of the Director, the learned Counsel submits that the opinion of the Director is that the food was not adulterated. The learned Counsel in support of his plea refers to 1977 Cri LJ 1353 (Gau), Tezpur Municipality v. Mohanlal. Mr. S.C. Das, the learned Public Prosecutor counters the submissions.