STATE OF ASSAM Vs. DHANPAT SAHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents Dhanpat and Ganpat are brothers, who owned at the relevant time, a grocery shop. They were prosecuted for selling adulterated "Ajowan" (Bishop's Weed) under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). They were acquitted and in this appeal trial court's verdict is challenged by the State.

(2.) That Ajowan is a "primary food" is not, and indeed cannot also be, denied and as such some of the serious contentions raised before us by respondents, counsel, while supporting the verdict, lose their force because of the decision of this Court in Narayan Saha But, Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the respondents, yet relied on the same decision to submit that the respondents have a good case at least for a remand even if the acquittal is not upheld. Indeed, this contention appears to have some merit and we would deal with it but after we have tested the verdict and examined the validity of the reasons given by the trial court.

(3.) From the evidence of Food Inspector (P W 1) it appears that he had taken the sample of Ajowan on 25-7-77 from the shop of the respondents by serving on the first respondent the prescribed notice in Form VI (Ex. 1). Another document which P.W. 1 proved is Fx. 2 captioned "Acknowledgement by Vendor" which purports to be a receipt for the price of Ajowan sold to him. Both these documents (Exts. 1 and 2) ate in English and signatures on them of respondent Dhanpat, which appears in vernacular, are proved by P.W. 1. Let it be stated even at this stage that both these documents were of crucial importance but these were not put to any of the accused when they were examined u/s 313 Crimial P.C.