JITMAL MAHESWARI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in Complaint Case No. 1459/78 convicted the three accused, namely, M/s. Mahabir Store, its employee and its proprietor respectively, under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and duly sentenced them. In appeal, Crl. Appeal No. 24 (K-1)/84, Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati set aside the conviction and sentence entered against first accused, but dismissed the appeal in regard to second and third accused. Hence this revision petition by accused 2 and 3.

(2.) P.W. 1, Food Inspector, Guwahati visited the premises of M/s. Mahabir Stores on 6-4-1978, found mustard oil exhibited for sale and after conforming to requirements of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, purchased 375 ml. of the oil and dealt with the same as required by the Act and the Rules. Part of the sample was duly sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts thereof were sent to the Local (Health) Authority (LHA). The Public Analyst in Ext. 6 report indicated that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards. After obtaining consent from the statutory authority, namely, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kamrup, P.W. 1 filed complaint against the store (A-1), the vendor (A-2) and the proprietor (A-3). LHA sent copies of the report along with the necessary intimation to the three accused by registered post with acknowledgment due.

(3.) Accused pleaded not guilty. The Food Inspector was examined as P.W. 1. A peon in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer who accompanied P.W. 1 and witnessed the sampling was examined at P.W. 2 All the necessary documents were exhibited and proved. The Assistant Analyst in the office of the Public Analyst was examined as D.W. 1. Accused, when questioned, denied the truth of the prosecution evidence. They denied receipt of copies of Public Analyst's report and intimation. Third accused denied that he was the proprietor of the business. The trial court upheld the prosecution case in its entirety and convicted the tree accused and imposed minimum sentence on each of them. The appellate court sustained the conviction and sentence entered against accused No. 2 and 3, but held that first accused cannot be convicted or sentenced since it is only the trade name under which third accused was conducting the trade.