JANARDHAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2013 as well as 14.07.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Revision No.163 of 2005, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar, in TR. No.160 of 2013, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below.

(3.) FROM the prosecution report it appears that the sample of 'Pera' was taken from the shop of the petitioner and it was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst upon analysis. On the basis of the said report the cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner had exercised the option under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample tested before the Central Food Laboratory at Kolkata, and the said prayer was allowed by the Court below.