RATANLAL AGARWALA JORHAT Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common revision petitioner in the two revision petitions has been convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in two separate cases for having sold adulterated food articles, namely, coriander powder and chillies powder to the Food Inspector and sentenced in each case to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentenced entered against him in each of the cases have been confirmed by the appellate Court in separate appeals. Hence these two revisions.

(2.) Revision petitioner is a trader in Jorhat town. Food Inspector, Jorhat on 28-5-79 visited the shop of the revision petitioner and after observing the legal requirements purchased samples of coriander powder and chillies powder and sent one part of each of the samples to the Public Analyst and the remaining part of the samples to the Local (Health) Authority. Public Analyst reported that the samples were adulterated. In due course, Food Inspector filed two separate complaints against him. Copies of the Public Analyst's reports with necessary intimations were forwarded to the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner did not apply to the Court to cause remaining part or parts of the samples to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. He pleaded not guilty in both the cases. In each of the cases, Food Inspector and a witness to the sampling were examined. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) In the course of the hearing of the revision petitions by one of us (Chief Justice) it was argued that there must be evidence that the copy of the Public Analyst's report has been served on the accused and prosecution did not adduce evidence to that effect in these cases and therefore, revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam v. Anukul Ch. Dev, (1985) 1 Gau LR 521. It was felt that the decision requires reconsideration and the cases were referred to larger Bench. This is how the cases have come before us.