GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 7:
1. Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The revision petitioner, namely, Md. Tayez Ali, has filed this petition aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the learned courts below convicting and sentencing him under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein PFA Act).
3. The case was initiated based on a complaint dated 07.11.2008 by the Senior Food Inspector, Bongaigaon, during normal checking and the present petitioner, who was a milk vendor, was checked with regard to the milk that he was stated to be selling at Chapaguri, Bongaigaon. The sample sent to the public analyst also returned an adverse finding, stating that the milk was deficient in milk fat and solids, not fat as per standards prescribed in Appendix B of the PFA Act and Rules and hence, was adulterated as per the same law.
4. The complaint resulted in the prosecution of the revision petitioner and during the trial, the Senior Food Inspector and one peon working in the office of Joint Director of Health Services, Bongaigaon were examined as prosecution witnesses, being PW-1 and PW-2, both of whom were cross-examined. Various documents were exhibited by the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court being the court of the learned CJM in CR Case No. 46/2009, vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2010 convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as already mentioned above. The said judgment and order was taken up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon and the consequent appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 9(1)/2010 was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 by upholding the conviction and sentence without making any changes therein. Accordingly, the convicted appellant is before this Court with the revision. Original trial court records were procured.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner who based his submissions mainly on two contentions/points- No. (i) that before taking the sample of milk, there was no stirring of the same on the part of the senior food inspector; (ii), that the sample was sent to the public analyst after three days instead of the stipulated two days as required by Rule 18 of the PFA Rules. The aforesaid Rule 18 of the PFA Rules 1954, may be reproduced herein below- "18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separatelyA copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working days."
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court a judgment of this court rendered in the case of Jitendra Lal Gope vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2011) 2 GLR 829. In the said judgment, this Court referred to two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel in that case being Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda vs. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma & Anr., reported in (1983) Crl. LJ 337 and State of Haryana vs. Daya Nand, reported in AIR (2004) SC 4358.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BE%2BPiMTOkZRq%2BXHtTRvBFt0RgGXIOkYnxsxRWApG%2FS9w&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./519/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010219822012&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
