VASUDEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the above numbered two cases. The first criminal revision filed by the accused petitioner Vasudeo and others (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 161/1983) and the other filed by the State against Nand Lal, against whom in exercise of the suo moto powers of revision under Sec. 401 Crimial P.C. read with Sec. 397 Crimial P.C. the court had issued a notice. The facts are these :

(2.) The business premises of the accused petitioner Vasudeo namely M/s Jagdamba Kirana Store, Kota were inspected by the Food Inspector PW 1 Shri O.P. Paul on 21st Sept. 1976. At that time Vasudeo the accused petitioner in one of the criminal revision was present at the shop. The Food Inspector suspected that the 'Maida' which was meant for sale at the shop of the accused petitioner was adulterated and, therefore, by form No. VI the Food Inspector informed that he wants to take sample for analysis. He paid the price and purchased 600 gms. of Maida which was taken out from a sealed gunny bag and the same was divided into three parts. Label No. 448 was marked on each of the sample, and each of the sample was wrapped and sealed in the presence of the Motbirs. One of the sample duly sealed was sent to the public analyst. It was given out by Vasudeo the accused petitioner that vide bill No. 386 and 383 he has received the gunny bags of maida from which sample was taken and other bags in all numbering 160 from Ganpati Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Bharatpur. He also produced Ex.P. 3 and P. 4 the vouchers and the purchase of 360 bags of Maida from other manufacturers. On analysis the public analyst found that the sample of Maida does not conform the prescribed standard of purety. After receiving the consent of the local authorities the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the accused petitioner and its manufacturer Shri Nand Gopal who was proprietor of M/s Ganpati Roller and Flour Mill, Bharatpur. When the case was pending trial an application was filed on behalf of the manufacturer that the other sample in the court may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and application was allowed. The Director, Central Food Laboratory under its report dated 9th May 1977 found that the sample of Maida does not conform the standard prescribed P.F.F. Rules. It was of the opinion that it was adulterated.

(3.) The accused petitioner and Nand Gopal were tried and after the statements of O.P. Paul was recorded a charge under Art. 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the charge was framed against each of them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under its judgment dated 7th April 1981 convicted the accused petitioner Vasudeo but so far as Nand Gopal the manufacturer is concerned, he acquitted him. The accused petitioner Vasudeo filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal under its judgment dated 26th March, 1983.