BINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.2001 passed by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal no. 45/96, confirming. the judgment of the trial court dated 23.2.96 rendered by SDJM in Case no. 16M/94. The revisionist was convicted for the offence under section 16(1) (a) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to undergo Rl for 3 months.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the revisionist 'slawyer that Food Inspector (PW 2) went to the shop of the revisionist on 30.9.92 at 11 a.m. and took sample of Haldi Powder in polythene bag and sent it to the Public Analyst. Subsequently, Public Analyst reported that the Haldi Powder did not conform to the prescribed standard. However, prosecution failed to examine independent witness to support the fact of taking sample from the shop of the revisionist. Thus, he violated the provision of section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) IT is clear from the evidence of PW2 that the Food Inspector kept the sample in a polythene bag and sent it to the Public analyst in the same packet although under proper seal. The evidence of PW2 was clear to the effect that admittedly no independent witness was examined to support the alleged sample taking by the Food Inspector. However, violation of rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act, Rules, 1955, is more than obvious. Admittedly, sample was kept and sealed in a polethene bag. In view of the above violation of the Act and Rule, I am of the opinion that conviction recorded by the two courts below is bad in law.