GOLAP CHAND PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23.9.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 16(S-3)/1996, whereby the appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment and order, dated 30.5.1996, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali, in CR Case No. 78371991, convicting the accused- petitioners under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, "PFA Act") and sentencing each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10007- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months.

(2.) The case against the accused-petitioners, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On 11.7.1991, Sri Sonaram Baruah, a Food Inspector, accompanied by his office peon, Samnur AH, visited the grocery shop of the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Golap Chandra Prasad Gupta, which was run under the name and style of M/s Lakhi Store", situated at Biswanath Chariali. The accused-petitioner No. 1 above named, though owner of the said shop, was absent, but his nephew, namely, Rajendra Prasad Gupta, who is accused-petitioner No. 2, was present at the shop and identified himself as an employee of the shop. The Food Inspector found cumin whole (Safed Jeera whole) exposed for sale at the said shop. Suspecting the quality of the said food article, so kept exhibited for sale, the Food Inspector purchased, in the presence of the said Samnur Ali, 450 grams of cumin whole from the accused-petitioner No. 2 and paid the price thereof by Exhibit-2. Before the purchase so made, the Food Inspector gave a notice in Form-VI (Ext. 1) to the accused-petitioner No. 2 for taking of the sample of cumin whole. The sample, so purchased, was divided into three equal parts of 150 grams each, same were put in three dry and clean containers and packed, sealed and labelled in accordance with the requirements of the PFA Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, "PFA Rules"). One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination. The report revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard and the same was unfit for consumption After obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, the Food Inspector submitted offence report against both the accused-petitioners.

(3.) During trial, the accused-petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the PFA Act. In all, prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, Food Inspector, Sonaram Baruah (PW-1), and his said office peon, Samnur Ali (PW-2). On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, on finding both the accused guilty of the charges framed against them, convicted them accordingly and passed against them the sentence as herein- above mentioned. As the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners against their conviction and sentence also failed, they have, now, approached this Court with the help of the present revision.