MANINDRA NARAYAN SEN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment will cover two Criminal Revisions namely, Criminal Revisions Nos. 11 and 12 of 1974. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1974 -Shri Manindra Narayan Sen Gupta and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1974 -Shri Sachindra Seal were convicted by the Additional District Magistrate (J), Goalpara at Dhubri under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in C. R. Case No. 1003 of 1972 and C. R. Case No. 1187 of 1972, respectively, by his judgments and orders dated 27.7.1973. Each of them was sentenced to R. I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to R. Y. for another six months. They preferred appeals before the Sessions Judge, Goalpara at Dhubri against the judgments and orders of the learned Additional District Magistrate, being Criminal Appeal No.3 (3) of 1973 and Criminal Appeal No.2 (3) of 1973, respectively. The learned Sessions Judge having dismissed the appeals by his separate judgments and orders dated 3.1.1974 the accused petitioners have come up with the present revision petitions. The facts in both the cases being exactly similar, I heard the two revision petitions together. The facts may be stated, in brief, as below.

(2.) THE petitioners have got their separate grocery shops at Golakganj bazaar in Dhubri Sub -division of Goalpara District. On 25.6.1972 Shri N. N. Deka, Food Inspector, Dhubri (P. W. 1 in both the cases) accompanied by Shri Radha Nath Das, a peon (P. W. 2 in both the cases) inspected the shops of the petitioners and examined the articles of food exposed for sale, including mustard oil; but he did not suspect any of these articles to be adulterated. He then asked the petitioners if they had with them any other mustard oil. Each of the petitioners then brought out from another room in his shop house one sealed tin of 'Shankar Brand' mustard oil and produced before the Food Inspector (P. W. 1). According to the witnesses, other than P. W. 1, examined in the cases, including P. W.2, the petitioners told P. W. 1 while producing the tins of mustard oil that these were not, for sale but were preserved by them to be used for lighting lamps at the time of Dewali festival. P. W. 1., however, denied this fact. Be that as it may, P. W. 1 purchased 600 ml. of oil from each of the petitioners from the said tins by way of samples on payment of Rs. 2.90 p. to each of them in presence of witnesses. He then divided the samples, in each case, into three parts in three bottles, gave one each to the petitioners and retained the other two with him. One of the samples retained, in each case, was sent to the Public Analyst, Shillong for examination. The Public Analyst found in his reports dated 24.8.1972 that linseed oil was present in the samples in both the cases in excessive quantity and that these were adulterated. The other ingredients in the samples were found according to the prescribed standard.

(3.) ON the basis of the reports submitted by the Public Analyst the Food Inspector, after obtaining sanctions from the Civil Surgeon, Goalpara, launched prosecution against the petitioners under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act by filing two separate complaints before the Additional District Magistrate (J) at Dhubri. The learned A. D. M. framed charges against both the petitioners under the said sections for having stored adulterated mustard oil for sale.