(1.) This application in revision is on behalf of the accused Ram Prasad Sao. It is directed against his conviction under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as recorded in the Courts below. His sentence in the trial Court consisted of one year's rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and that of fine maintained. Thereafter, he has preferred this revision seeking to assail his such conviction and sentence.
(2.) In the trial Court, this petitioner as also his father Kurna Sao had been prosecuted and both were awarded the same sentence, as above, by the Magistrate. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge held him (father) not guilty and acquitted him.
(3.) On 26-7-1967 the Pood Inspector (P.W. 1) visited the petitioner's grocery shop along with the two witnesses (P. Ws, 2 and 3). At that time, petitioner's father was noticed selling articles to customers in this shop. He (P.W. 1), after disclosing his identity to him (Kurna Sao) asked him to sell samples of mustard oil and haldi that were stored in the shop for sale. He also served upon him the necessary notice in that behalf. He then purchased 375 grams of mustard oil and 450 grams of haldi out of that stock for which he paid him the required price, He (P.W. 1) then divided those oil and haldi samples into three equal parts each and put them in three containers and then packed and sealed them in presence of the petitioner's father. Thereafter, he handed over one of those samples to him, after obtaining his receipt therefor. Later, after obtaining necessary orders of the higher authorities, he (P.W. 1) sent one each of these samples to the public Analyst for examination and report. The reports of the public Analyst, in due course, were received indicating that the samples so sent had been found to be adulterated. In the case of oil sample, it was found to be highly adulterated with linseed oil (vide Exhibit 6/1) and the other, that is, haldi was found to have been adulterated containing excess lead. On receipt of those reports, the Food Inspector submitted his report for their prosecution to the District Medical Officer of Health, who, in turn, by virtue of his authority vested in law, sanctioned their prosecution and forwarded it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for necessary cognizance. On that report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in his order dated 28-2-1968 took cognizance of the offence against the above two persons and transferred the case to another Magistrate for trial where in due course they were tried with the above result. In appeal, as already shown, the father-accused was acquitted and the sentence of this petitioner was modified.