BENOY KRISHNA MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner Shri Benoy Krishna Mukherjee, partner of Shri Guru Bhandar, Thangal Bazar, Imphal (hereinafter called 'the accused'), challenges the judgment dated 9 -6 -77, passed by the Sessions Judge, Manipur, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 11/75/5/75, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1236 of 1974, convicting him under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 5.1.1974, Shri Ch. Ibobi Singh, Food Inspector, entered the shop of M/s. Shri Guru Bhandar, Thangal Bazar, Imphal, and found sesame oil in an open tin exposed for sale and he purchased 375 grams from the accused, divided into 3 equal parts, put them in clean, dry and empty bottles, sealed and packed those according to rules in presence of the accused and witnesses and handed over one of the bottles to the accused. One sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst at Shillong and report bearing No. M/24/74 dated 12.3.1974 was received with the finding that the sample was of an adulterated sesame oil. Sanction was obtained from the Municipality and the accused was prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act'. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge taking plea that it was false. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manipur Central District, by his judgment dated 20.3.1975 holding that there was no defect or lacunae in prosecuting the accused as a vendor without the aid of Section 17, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to 2? years' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default 4 months' R. I.

(3.) THE accused appealed to the Sessions Judge, who held, inter alia, that the sanction given by the Imphal Municipal Board, did not suffer from any infirmity; that the non -mention of the adulterant was a mere irregularity and did not vitiate the trial; that the prosecution was done individually for selling adulterated sesame oil as the accused personally sold the sample and so he was tried as a vendor of the adulterated sesame oil without the aid of Section 17 of the Act, that the statement of the Food Inspector that he did not know if the oil sample was sesame oil was immaterial; that the duty of the prosecution cannot go to the extent of proving that the oil found was meant for human consumption and the duty of the prosecution ended with the proof that the article was normally an article of food which was normally for human consumption. The appeal was partly allowed, the sentence being reduced from 2? years to 1? years' R. I. Hence, this revision petition.