CHANDAN PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 29.11.2004, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 5(2)/2002, by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 21.03.2002, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in CR Case No. 1817/2000, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the accused-petitioner, Chandan Paul, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') and sentenced the accused-petitioner to suffer imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 (two) months, the appellant (i.e., the present accusedpetitioner) has preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) The prosecution's case may, in brief, be described thus: On 26.05.2000, Food Inspector, Silchar, accompanied by his Office Peon, visited the grocery shop premises of M/s Pratima Bhandar and found Chandan Paul (i.e., the present petitioner) present there conducting business of his said grocery shop. After disclosing his identity and, on inspecting the articles of food, which had been kept stored there, for sale, for human consumption, the Food Inspector took, amongst others, some sample of Jeera (Cumin). For this purpose, the Food Inspector gave a notice, in Form VI, to the vendor, Chandan Paul, and purchased, by paying Rs. 54/-, a packet of Jeera powder, which had been kept exposed for sale. One of the samples of the Jeera powder was sent to the Public Analyst, Assam, for analysis, who, after analysis of the sample of Jeera powder, reported that the said Jeera powder was adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, having obtained requisite sanction from the Local (Health) Authority, lodged a complaint, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, which gave rise to CR Case No. 1817/2000. On institution of the case aforementioned, the Local (Health) Authority, with the help of the Food Inspector, sent a copy of the Public Analyst's report to the accused-petitioner with a forwarding letter.

(3.) At the trial, when a charge, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act, was framed against the accusedpetitioner, the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto.