MURALIDHAR GATTANI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In CR Case No. 142 of 1989, the three petitioners before us were convicted of the offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were sentenced. The petitioners thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No.20 of 1993 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat vide order dated 9.9.96 affirmed the order of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 31.1.89, the Food Inspector collected samples of rice from the shop of M/s Malchand Radheshyam situated at Jorhat which belongs to the petitioner Muralidhar Gattani. The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Pareek was the vendor. The Public Analyst opined that the sample of rice does not conform to the standard.

(3.) In this case the collection of the sample and the report of the Public Analyst is not in dispute. At the time of taking sample itself, the petitioner claimed that the goods in question was purchased by them from M/s Gangabishan Jhumermal, Titabor as per challan at Ext 4 dated 31.1.89 and accordingly the Food Inspector issued notice in Form No. VI to the sub distributor/manufacturer. It may be mentioned here that the said firm M/s Gangabishan Jhumermal was arrayed as an accused and they were tried along with the petitioners and the learned CJM acquitted them on conclusion of the trial.