DILIP DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22.5.90, the Food Inspector, Jonai collected sample of turmeric powder from the shop of M/s. Das Biscuit Kumsung, situated at Jonai Bazar and on analysis of the sample of turmeric powder it was found to be adulterated, as there was added rice powder to the extent of 25%. After obtaining necessary sanction, the accused Dilip Das and Babul Das, the two partners of the said firm were tried by the learned S.D. J.M., Jonai in C.R. 48/90. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate convicted the two accused persons under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the Act and sentenced them to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to further imprisonment for two months. The convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33(4)/92 and the appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence in respect of Babul Das but maintained the order of conviction and sentence against the present petitioner as he was a vendor.

(2.) In this case, we find that taking of the sample from the petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner had examinedhimself as D. W.- 1 and he has admitted that the sample of turmeric powder was collected from him by the Food Inspector. The petitioner came up with the plea that the turmeric powder was not meant for sale and it was meant for colouring the' dhoti' of his father who used to wear coloured dhoti. In this case we find that there was altogether 7/8 K.Gs. of turmeric powder in the shop and the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, therefore, rejected the defenceplea Moreover, the law is well settled that sale to Food Inspector for analysis amounts to sale as defined under Clause(13) of Section 2 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding regarding t he compliance o f the above provisions of law and there is evidence of the Food Inspector that he had requested the purchasers, present in the shop, to witness the sample collection and one Jogen Pegu had witnessed the taking of the sample along with the Peon accompanied. In view of the above, we hold that there is no violation of Section 10(7) of the Act.