STATE OF ASSAM Vs. RAKESH CHANDRA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-5-82 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereafter referred as the 'Act'.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 30-5-81 when the Food Inspector, hereafter referred as the 'Inspector' inspected the shop premises of Rakesh Paul, the respondent, in Sariqauri Bazar, he had found kesari dal exposed in his shop, and after disclosure of his identity had obtained sample of kesari dal for analysis. The samples of Arhar Dal, and mustard oil had also been taken and sent for chemical analysis. Arhar Dal and Mustard oil were in order. The possession and exposure of kesari dal had been prohibited by notification dated 10/03/1966 under Rule 44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereafter referred as the 'Rules' and so was an offence under Section 7 of the Act (read with Rule 44A above) and was punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Sanction was obtained and prosecution followed. The accused respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution had examined two witnesses. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by the judgment impugned in this appeal held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had violated the provisions of the notification under Rule 44A of the Rules, and charge under Section 16 of the Act was not established. The accused was acquitted.

(3.) Aggrieved, the Government has come in appeal, and Sri B. B. Narzary, learned P.P., has submitted that by the aforesaid notification under Rule 44A of the Rules, the Government of Assam had banned cultivation, possession and sale of Kesari dal, and hence even mere possession of kesari dal was offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Sri Narzary has, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the learned court below is erroneous and cannot be sustained.