DHANESHWAR RAM @ DHANESHWAR SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (i) a(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the court of Sri N. C. Gupta, Subdivisional Judscial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, by his order dated 4th June, 1987, in G/4/84/T.R. 147/87, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment six months as well as a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

(2.) His appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 105/87, against the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court has also been dismissed by by the court of Sri Uma Shanker, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh by his order, dated 29th August, 1988, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence.

(3.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that sample of Haldi i. e. turmeric powder was found to be adulterated on analysis and the evidence in this case consists of the statement of Sri Mallick, Food Inspector, Hazaribagh who appeared as PW 1 at the trial and Jaimudin, PW 2, in whose presence the sample is alleged to have been taken. According to the statement of PW 2, the report of the public analyst was sent to the petitioner under certificate of posting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this procedure adopted by the Food inspector is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act as well as the Rule 9-A of the Rules made thereunder, according to which the report of the public analyst has to be sent either by registered post or by hand. In support of his contention, he has cited L. M. Batra V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1995 1 BLJR 70. This reported case on all forces in support of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been held therein as follows: