RAM BHAGAT AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(2.) The petitioner before us, Sri Ram Bhagat Agarwalla, stands convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Foo.d Adulteration Act, for short the Act. On 5.2.89, the Food Inspector collected samples of Chili powder, which were in sealed packets, containing 50 grams each. The samples were sent for analysis and a report was received to the effect that the samples is adulterated as it contains coal-tardye. The petitioner was therefore tried, convicted and sentenced.

(3.) In the present case, the collection of sample and the Public analyst report is not in dispute. The petitioner came up with a plea that the sample in question was purchased by him from Raj Kumar Mahato and it was stored for sale and sold in the same condition and, as such, he is protected under Section 19(2) of the Act. The petitioner examined himself and proved and exhibited the cash memo etc. It may be mentioned that on the prayer of the petitioner, the manufacturer was also arrayed as a party and process was issued by the Court. However, as no process could be served, the trial did not proceed against the said manufacturer. The protection under Section 19(2) was refused on the following counts (1) that the cash memo in question was not shown to the Food Inspector at the time of collection of sample; (2) that the accused has failed to establish that Raj Kumar Mahato has a licence to manufacture Chili powder.