Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 342 (MP)

Nanakram v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal

2003-02-27

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This revision petition has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.5.1991 passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Bhopal, in R.T. No. 301/90 convicting the applicants under sections 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sentencing each applicant for six months R.I. and fine Rs. 1,500/- each, in default, further five months simple imprisonment to each applicant. In appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been maintained. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.4.1985, Food Inspector Shri G.K. Verma collected the sample of Soyabeen Oil from the shop of the applicants from a tin. A Panchnama (Ex. P-4) was prepared on the spot and after completing the formalities, the sample of the said oil was sent to the Public Analyst who found the oil to be adulterated, as a result of which the applicants were prosecuted. A charge under section 7(1)/16 of the Act was framed against the applicants which they denied. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined two witnesses. In the defence, the applicants examined one Vishnu Kumar. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicants did commit the offence of which they were charged and as a result of which they were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicants preferred an appeal before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, who by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred by the applicants. In this revision petition Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that before obtaining the sample of the Soyabeen Oil from the bulk, the same was not stirred so as to make it homogeneous and therefore, his conviction is bad in law. Per contra, Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Food Inspector collected the sample after performing all formalities according to the law and, therefore, the applicants have been rightly convicted by the Courts below. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention on the Panchnama (Ex. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention on the Panchnama (Ex. P-4) and has contended that nowhere in the Panchnama it has been so mentioned that before obtaining the sample of the oil, the bulk was stirred so as to make it homogeneous: To bolster his submission, be has placed heavy reliance on the case of Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1991 FAJ 546. This Court has also followed the same dictum in Criminal Revision No. 327/94 (Dhaniram Gupta v. The State of M.P. decided on 17.2.2003. After giving my anxious consideration to this submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, I find that there is merit in his contention. No where in the Panchnama (Ex. P-4) it has been so mentioned that before obtaining the sample from the bulk, the same was stirred so as to make it homogeneous. In the statement of the Food Inspector also this fact does not find place. In this view of the matter, the law laid down in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicants is fully applicable in the present case. As the sample of the oil was not collected by the Food Inspector according to the law, therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be maintained. The learned Courts below without taking into consideration this legal aspect of the matter, convicted the applicants which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the applicants under sections 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is hereby set aside. The applicants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. The amount affine, if deposited, be refunded to the applicants.