ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner was convicted by the learned AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur under section 7/16.aC the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the P.F:A.. ActT) under the judgment dated 30th December; 1981 and was sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 months Simple Imprisonment. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and the learned Sessions Judge No.2 under his judgment dated 12th December, 1984 dismissed the appeal.

(2.) It was on 16th of August, 1979 at about 2.20 p.m. that the Food Inspector B.K. Chaturvedi P.W.1 visited the shop of the accused - petitioner and saw that on the shop accused - petitioner was present and was selling groundnut-oil as well as Tara Meera oil. The said two oils were kept in two separate drums. He suspected Tara Meera oil to be adulterated and purchased 375 grams of oil and paid Rs. 3.37. It was devided in three equal parts and each part was filled in a clean bottle each of which was wrapped and sealed in accordance with the rules. One sample was delivered by Shri Chaturvedi to the Chief Public Analyst, Bharatpur on 17th August, 1979 i.e. the next day the sample was taken. It was analysed and uhder report EX.P-7 dated 21st of September, 1979 of the Chief Public Analyst (CPA) it was found that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. After putting the papers to the C.M. & H.O Bharatpur who was the local authority and who has been authorised by the State Government under the notification gave its consent for the prosecution. A complaint was filed against the petitioner and he was tried and convicted as aforesaid. The plea of the petitioner in his, statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the sample was taken but the oil was not meant for sale but was meant for domestic consumption. He also came out with the case that the proceedings were not in accordance with law but did not examine any witness in defence.

(3.) It may be stated that it does not appear that before the two courts below the legality of the written consent to prosecute the petitioner for an offence under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act was ever challenged but in my opinion it is a legal point and the sanction is available on the record and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner can raise this plea in his submission as it goes to the very root of the case.