STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SARDAR SARDUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the scrutiny done by the learned Portfolio Judge, Tinsukia, of the common judgment and order, dated 19.04.1999, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 18 (1)71995 and 19(4)/l 995, this revision was taken up by the High Court suo-moto. By the judgment and order, dated 19.04.1999, aforementioned, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order, dated 22.11.1995, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in CR. Case No. 921/1991, convicting the accused opposite parties 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. 1,0007- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.

(2.) I have perused the materials on record including the impugned judgment. I have heard Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel for the accused opposite parties, and Mr. FH Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State.

(3.) The case against the accused-opposite parties, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On31.05.1991, the Food Inspector, Sri CAM Gogoi, accompanied by his office peon, Anar Khan, visited the restaurant run under the name and style of "Sweet Assam" at AT Road, Tinsukia, and found the accused opposite parties, Paresh Sarkar (i.e., the accused opposite-party No. 2) present in the said restaurant. The Food Inspector and his peon also noticed curd prepared from cow milk lying exposed for sale for human consumption, in the show-case, at the said restaurant. The Food Inspector, suspecting the quality of the curd, expressed his intention to take sample from the curd, so offered for sale, for the purpose of analysis. Though the Food Inspector requested 3/4 customers present at the shop to become witnesses to the taking of samples of the curd, the customers declined, whereupon the Food Inspector requested his said peon to become a witness. As the peon agreed to become a witness, the Food Inspector (PW1), in the presence of the peon (PW2), served a notice, in form VI, to the accused Paresh Sarkar and purchased 600 grams of curd on payment of Rs. 12/-. The accused Paresh Sarkar acknowledged the receipt of the price of the said curd so paid. The Food Inspector churned the curd so purchased and divided the same into 3 equal parts and kept the same in three dry clean glass containers and added formalin as preservative. The vendor, Paresh Sarkar, also informed the Food inspector that Sardar Sardul Singh, (i.e., the accused Opposite party No. 1 here in) was the proprietor of the said restaurant. The sample of the curd, so taken, was, on analysis by Public Analyst, found to be adulterated. After obtaining requisite sanction, a complaint was accordingly lodged by the Food Inspector against the two accused-opposite parties aforementioned.