BIPLAB KANTI HALDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of this revision, the petitioner, Biplab Kanti Haldar, has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 14.11.2003, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 7(1) of 2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 28.01.2003, passed, in CR Case No. 608 of 1999, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, whereby the learned trial Court had convicted the accused-petitioner, Biplab Kanti Haldar, under Section 16, read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act'), and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 (two) months. The case of the prosecution, as emerged at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: On 30.01.1999, Sri A.C. Boro, Senior Food Inspector, Karimganj, visited the grocery shop (which was run under the name and style of M/s. Bindu Bhusan Haldar, having licence No. KR-547/87), when the present petitioner was allegedly running the shop. The Food Inspector claimed to have purchased 300 grams of turmeric powder, by paying Rs. 21/-, from the available stock, which was kept in sealed polythin packet of 100 grams each. Having taken the sample of turmeric powder as stated hereinbefore, the sample, so purchased, was divided into three parts and one part of the samples was sent, on 01.02.1999, to the Public Analyst, Assam, along with a Memorandum in Form VII. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the turmeric powder, which had been sent, as stated above, for analysis, was found adulterated. Having obtained requisite sanction from the Local (Health) Authority, an offence report was submitted against the present accused-petitioner, Biplab Kanti Haldar, seeking his prosecution under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

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

(3.) In support of their case, prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, the said Food Inspector and his office peon. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. PC and, in his examination, aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, briefly stated, thus: The present accused-petitioner was neither vendor nor owner of the said grocery shop inasmuch as said shop belongs to, and was owned by, his father, Bindu Bhusan Haldar. It was the further case of the defence that the accused-petitioner, Biplab Kanti Haldar, was an employee of Mahisasan Sub-Post Office, at the relevant point of time, and the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) called him from the said Post Office, on 30.01/1999, through his office peon (P.W. 2) and, though the accused-petitioner informed the Food Inspector that he (accused-petitioner) was not the owner of the said shop, the Food Inspector obtained his signatures on some papers and, thereafter, the accused-petitioner left the said shop and went back to resume his duty at the said Post Office.