BADNNARAYAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is from the Judgment and order dated 11-9-73 of the Sessions Judge, U.A D. at Jorhat, whereby the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called the 'Food Act', was upheld.

(2.) The District Food Inspector, Jorhat, entered the shop of M/s Badrinarayan Bagunath Prasad, Golaghat, 7-12-71 and purchased 750 grams of Khesari dal, served a notice that the sample was taken for analysis ; and the Public Analyst reported the sample to be of Khesari dal, coloured with prohibited, coaltar dye. At the trial PWs 2 and 3 stated that the Khesari dal was stored not in the shop but in the inner verandah. The defence was that the same was stored not for sale but for use as fodder for the petitioner's own cattle. The trial court held that under the circumstances it was stored for sale, though there was no direct evidence to that effect. PW 1 stated that he found Khesari dal exhibited in the accused's shop along with other food stuff. The Public Analyst did not reveal that the sample of Khesari dal was adulterated. The trial court therefore held the petitioner 'guilty under Sec. 16(l)(a) of the Food Act read with Sec. 7(iv) on the ground of violation of Rule 44-A read with the Assam Government Notification No. MPH. 332/61/152 dated 10-3-66 published in the Assam Gazette of March 23, 1966 Part II A issued under Rule 44-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which banned cultivation of Khesari gram and possession and sale of Khesari gram, Khesari dal, Khesari flour; and the mixture of Khesari gram and dal and their products throughout the entire State of Assam with effect from 1st April, 1966. The cultivation, possession and sale of Khesari dal being thus completely banned, the Court held that the storing or mere possession was itself an offence being violative of the Rule'44-A read with the Notification, irrespective of whether it was meant for fodder for cattle or human food. Accordingly the petitioner was convicted as above.

(3.) On appeal, the contention that mere possession was not an offence was upheld; but the appellate court itself re-appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner kept the dal along with other dais in the shop room as stated by PWs 1 and 3 who also stated that the petitioner and 5/6 bags of dal in his godown as well. PW 2 said that the dal had been taken from a bag laying in the inner verandah and that the accused had some cattle of his own. The appellate Court, however, from the evidence on record held that the petitioner had stored the Khesari dal for sale, for human consumption like the other commodities similarly stored in the shop; and accordingly the conviction was upheld. Hence this revision petition.