Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 264 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Sudhangsu Chandra Roy

1990-12-12

S.HAQUE

body1990
Accused respondent Shri Sudhangsu Chandra Roy had been acquitted of the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act viJe judgment dated 7.4.1984 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in C.R. Cass No.U25 of 1983. Hence, appeal by the State of Assam against the order of acquittal. 2. The Food Inspector Shymalendu Choudhury took sample of khesiri dal from the shop of the accused on 30.11.1982 by observing all formalities under the Act and Rules. The formalities observed are not in dispute. Public Analyst reported that khesari dal was prohibited article under Rule 44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. The trial Court acquitted holding that sanction under section 20 was not proper, that section 13 (2) of the Act was not complied and that khesari dal was not stored inside the shop. The evidence on these points have been examined. The Local Health Authority duly signed the sanction (Ext.7) prepared by the Food Inspector. Thus due consent was given by the Health Authority as required under the provision of section 20 of the Act. Hence, there was no error in the sanction. The copy of this Analyst Report was duly posted under postal receipt Ext.9 with correct address to the accused. The legal presumption was that the same was duly delivered to the accused. Therefore, there was no deprivation of tie privilege under the provision of section 13(2) of the Act. 4. On careful scrutiny of th3 evidence of the Food Inspector it was found that khesari dal was exposed/stored in the shop of the accused. The plea of the accused was that the same was meant for cattle and was kept outside the shop. Exposure and possession of the khesari dal was a contravention to Rule 44 A. There was no defence evidence to substantiate the fact that it was meant as fodder and that it was not stored inside the shop. Mere statement under section 313 was not enough to accept the defence plea. Exposure and possession of the khesari dal was a contravention to Rule 44 A. There was no defence evidence to substantiate the fact that it was meant as fodder and that it was not stored inside the shop. Mere statement under section 313 was not enough to accept the defence plea. Tha Assam Government Notification No. MPH 332/61/152, dated 10.3.1966 published in the Assam Gizatte dated March 23, 1966 Part-A Israel uider Rile 44 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hid totally baaaid cultivation of khesari gram and possession and sale of khssari gram, khesari dal, khesari flour an1 the mixture of khesari gram aid dal and their products through out the entire State of Assam with effect from 1st April, 1966. The cultivation, possession and sale of khesari dal by storing/exposing in the shop being thus completely banned, the storing and msre possession of khesari dal itself is an offence being vio'ativa of the Rule 44A irrespective r>f whether it was meant as fodder or human food. Exposer/storing and possession of the khesari dal or its products in the shop is violative of Rule 44 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules- It was proved in the instant case that khesari dal was kept exposed/stored in the shop of the accused and sample was taken therefrom. Taking the evidence as a whole, it is found that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and law and thereby gave perverse judgment. The same deserves interference. (Relied 1965 Crl.L.J. 446; 1982 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 48; 1978 Crl.L.J. 245 and 1986 (2) FAC 374). 5. This appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. Accused-respondent is convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was detected in the year 1982; the accused was kept under mental tension and anxiety with suspended animation all these years; trial and appeal were delayed for no fault of the accused. All these formulate extenuating circumstances as exceptional one for liberal punishment lesser then the minimum prescribed. One day imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months will meet the ends of justice in this case. All these formulate extenuating circumstances as exceptional one for liberal punishment lesser then the minimum prescribed. One day imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months will meet the ends of justice in this case. The accused-respondent is now sentenced to one day imprisonment till rising of the Court before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default R. I. for 6 (six) months. Accused-respondent is directed to surrender before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar within a month to serve out the sentence till rising of the Court and allowed three months time to pay the fine. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar shall issue notice on him immediately. Send the records with copy of judgment immediately to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siichar for necessary action.