BHABAKANTA LAHKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case in which a petty village shop keeper doing his business in a small village far away from the maddening crowd has been prosecuted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine, of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 6 months, by the Courts below.

(2.) The allegations are that P. W. 1 Shri S. P. Sarma, the District Food Inspector of Gauhati went to the sweet-meat shop of the petitioner Bhabakanta Lahkar State of Assam situated at village Dhopatary, Changsari and took samples of 'Jilabi', a very common sweet-meat in this part of the laud. He took the sample because he was suspicious as to the nature of the colouring materials used in the preparation of the Jilabi. It was alleged by the prosecution that the Food Inspector took the sample and paid the necessary price and divided as required under the law, into three parts and packed those parts and left one part with the accused and thereafter sent one of the packets to the Public Analyst who analysed the food and submitted a report that the sample of'Jilabi' was coloured with "Metanil Yellow" which, according to him was a prohibited couloer dys. On receipts of due sanction, the complaint was lodged by Shri Sarma and in due course two witnesses were examined including the Food Inspector by the prosecution in support of its case and they were cross-examined and discharged.

(3.) The defence was that the accused did not sell 'Jilabi' at all. It may be stated here that although this defence was taken up by the accused person, no cross-examination was directed to chellenge the evidence of the P. Ws. that the signatures contained in Form VI, served on the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was not that of the accused. Further, no challenge was made by the accused during the cross-examination even when the witnesses categorically deposed that one part of the sample was left with accused person. The only ground taken up in cross-examination was that in Ext. 2 there was no signature of the vendor. This Ext. 2 is an acknowledgement of the receipt of the price. It has not been contested that the 'Jilabi' was not a Food not any attempt was made to show that any of the procedural errors were committed by the Food Inspector. It is undoubtedly true that the accused suggested to P W 1, the Food Inspector that the Jilabi' was not sold by him and established that very many persons were available at the time when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector.