STATE OF ASSAM Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar at Jorhat in C.R. Case Nos. 2433 and 2434 of 1972 on 18.11.74, where in the Respondent was tried under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') for selling and storing for sale of prohibited colour of moth dal and arahar dal. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record acquitted the Respondent of the charges in both the cases by a common judgment passed or the aforesaid date.

(2.) ON 5.6.72 P.W. 1, Sonaram Baruah, District Food inspector went to the shop of the Respondent and collected sample of arahar dal and moth dal on payment of the price for the same in presence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The sample in both the cases were divided into three parts and properly sealed. One packet was sent to the public Analyst, one packet was given to the Respondent and the third packet was retained in the Court. It is the case prosecution that the memorandum for the (sic) was signed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The Public Analyst (sic) P.K. Das who was examined as C.W. 1 gave a report that (sic) in both the cases were adulterated by non -permitted coaltar dye known as "metanil yellow". On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, P.W. 1 sought the sanction from the Civil Surgeon, Jorhat and after obtaining the sanction launched the prosecution.

(3.) WE have ourselves perused the evidence of P.W. 2, Bharam Bharali. On the scrutiny of his evidence it is quite apparent that he was present at the time when the pulses were being collected from the shop of Respondent. He has further deposed that when the Food Inspector prepared the papers, he signed those papers and they are marked as Ext. 1(3) and Ext. 2(2). This deposition is in regard to C.R. Case No. 2433/72. He has given similar evidence in regard to other case namely, C.R. Case No. 2434/72. He has stated that the accused Ram Kumar was present whom he knew. He entered the shop while the Food Inspector was taking the materials. It is in his evidence that the Food Inspector collected arahar and moth dal. He was present when the arahar dal was being packed. In view of the specific evidence of this witness in both the cases, we find it difficult to accept the conclusion as reached by the learned trial Court that this witness came later after the sample -packets were sealed or packed.