BHAIRAM PARIK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2001 dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in C.R. case No. 7/1997. The petitioners had been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000A each, in default, S.J. for another two months.

(2.) I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) The bare facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioners may be set out at the outset. On 12.5.1997, the District Food Inspector, Golaghat visited the shop named and styled as "Ganpatrai Indrachand" and on inspecting the food articles kept in the shop and being suspicious about the quality of turmeric powder displayed for sale, notified the petitioner No. 1 Shri Bhai Ram Parik of his intention to collect the sample thereof for analysis. The petitioner No. 1, according to the prosecution represented himself to be the Manager of the firm and the petitioner No. 2 the owner thereof. The Food Inspector being unable to get hold of any official witness, eventually collected the sample in presence of the peon Shri Kiron Ch. Das who had accompanied him on the round. A quantity of 600 gms turmeric powder was collected and divided into three equal parts. The samples were put in three clean and dry polythene bags which were thereafter packed and sealed. One part of the sample was, thereafter sent to the Public Analyst who returned an opinion that the sample was adulterated. After completion of necessary formalities pertaining to the launching of prosecution, a complaint was filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. A notice was also issued to the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Act informing them about the findings of the Public Analyst and also about their right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. On the prayer of the petitioner No. 2, the second part of the sample was sent to the central Food Laboratory which also opined the sample to be adulterated, but on different considerations. The trial was conducted against the petitioners in course of which, the Food Inspector and the Peon were examined in support of the prosecution as PW 1 and PW 2. On completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as above. In appeal, the petitioners being unsuccessful, they are before this court.