STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NARESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 378 (i) and (iii) Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, dated October 11, 1979 in case No. 197/79.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on January 10, 1976, Food Inspector, Sawaimadhopur, visited the shop of the respondent, at Bajaria, district Sawaimadhopur, and suspected adulteration in Taramira oil, contained in tin container, kept at the shop of the accused-respondent. He purchased 375 gms. of the oil on payment in presence of independent witnesses under requisite documents and members as per rules The sample was sent for analysis to C lief Public Analyst, Jaipur, whose report showed it to be adulterated. After obtaining the necessary sanction, a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act 1954) was filed in the court of Chief Jud, Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. The accused respondent denied the charge and claimed trial. After examining the evidence of both parties and hearing arguments, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the respondent to be guilty of the charges under Section 7/16 of the Act, 1954 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of six month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The accused respondent filed an appeal against this decision, which was heard by learned Sessions Judge Sawaimadhopur, who held that provisions of Section II of the Act 1954 and Rules framed there under i. e. 7. 17 and 18 were not complied with nor the ownership and possession of oil in question were proved by the prosecution. It was further held that oil, from which the sample was taken was not for sale and he acquitted the accused respondent of the offence charged with.

(3.) THE next ground raised on behalf of the State is that it has been fully proved from statement of P. W. l food inspector that the oil from which sample was taken was kept on the shop by the respondent for sale. This witness in his statement has stated that he did not see only other person, purchasing the oil from which the sample was taken by him. P. W. 2 Prahlad has stated in his statement that the respondent does business of selling grass; oil etc. He does not say that the oil from which the sample was taken by the food inspector was kept for the purposes of sale on the shop by the respondent. Apart from this, P. W. 5 Tapan Dass has stated that the oil from which the sample was taken by the food inspector was not kept on the shop by the respondent for sale and that the accused respondent had told to the food inspector that this oil was not kept for the sale. It may be mentioned that this witness was not declared hostile. Keeping in view the evidence diseased above, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the oil from which the sample was taken was meant for sale.