SIBNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 8 of 1989 convicting the present petitioner Sri Sibanath Singh for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for storing and selling 'Laddu' coloured with prohibited coal tar colour metanil yellow and sentencing the accused-petitioner to undergo RI for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer further R/I for 2 months as well as the impugned judgment dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1992 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The facts of the prosecution case in a short compass are as follows.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by one Food Inspector. Jorhat stating that he had collected sample of 'Laddu' from the accused-petitioner after due compliance of required legal formalities and the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who in turn analysed the sample and sent a report with the opinion that the sample of "Bundiya Laddu" contains non- permitted coal-tar colour metanil yellow and. accordingly, the sanction was accorded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jorhat to prosecute the vendor namely, the present petitioner as well as the owner of the hotel namely, Sri Biswanath Singh.

(3.) Upon hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court found the present accused- petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, acquitted the owner of the hotel Sri Biswanath Singh under the impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1992. Hence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and the First appellate Court also did not interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court thus, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the petitioner herein preferred this criminal revision.