HANUMAN MAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision arises out of the judgment and order, dated 20.6.96, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3)/1989, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner challenging the judgment and order, dated 17.6.89. passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, in C.R. Case No. 936/87, convicting the petitioner under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) The case against the accusedappellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows : On 27.3.87, Shri A.C. Sarma, Food Inspector of Lakhimpur, accompanied by his office peon, namely, Harendra Nath Dutta, went to the grocery shop of the accused, at Dholpur, which was being run under the name and style of Vikash Trading Company, and upon making enquiry, when the Food Inspector came to know that the accused was the owner of the said grocery shop, he (Food Inspector) disclosed his identity and, after serving the accused with a notice in Form VI, took, in the presence of his said peon as a witness, sample of Ajowan weighting 450 grams by paying requisite price thereof. After observing an formalities relating to taking of the sample and its packing, the Food Inspector sent one of the samples to Public Analyst, who, in turn, vide Ext. 10, opined that the sample was an adulterated one. Thereafter, the Food Inspector obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority and lodged his offence report against the accused. On the request made by the accused, one of the samples was also sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as "the CFL )who too reported that the sample was adulterated.

(3.) During trial, when a charge framed under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the PFA Act was read over and explained to the accused, 'he pleaded not guilty thereto.