SHYAM SUNDAR MAHESWRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jorhat in criminal appeal No. 23/1996 upholding the judgment and order dated 19.4.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 190 of 1994 thereby convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, and also heard Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the petitioner inter alia is that on 6.4.1994, the Food Inspector, Jorhat accompanied by his Peon visited the shop of the accused petitioner and observing all the formalities, purchased 750 gms of Arohor Dal by paying necessary prices against receipt. The sample was divided into three equal parts and after packing and sealing properly in presence of the witnesses, one parti of the same together with a copy of the memorandum was sent by registered post to the Public Analyst, Government of Assam for necessary examination. The Food Inspector also sent separately a copy of the memorandum in accordance with the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules') and deposited other two samples to the Public Analyst together. In due course of time, the report of the Public Analyst was received which discloses that the sample of article is artificially coloured by tartrazine which is found to be adulterated and is not permitted to be used in Arohor Dal and hence, found to be adulterated. Thereafter the public analyst delivered his report to the local health authority and after obtaining necessary sanction from the authority the complaint for prosecution was filed in the Court alleging violation of the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules thereunder. The accused petitioner was summoned by the trial court and an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act was explained to the accused petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, M/s Gopal Bhander was also impleaded as co-accused under Section 20 of the Act vide order, dated 7.3.1995. The impleaded accused M/s Gopal Bhander on his appearance and having been explained the particulars of offence, also denied the same and pleaded not guilty.