JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 12-12-2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 22(3)/2007 dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 24-08-2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, in CR Case No. 2144C/1991, convicting the accused-petitioner, under Section 16, read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PFA Act’) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. 2. I have heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-petitioner, and Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The facts leading to the case is that, on 08-08-1991, Sri BN Pathak, Food Inspector, Dibrugarh, inspected the firm of M/S Ranjeet Dutta, situated at New Market, Dibrugarh. Sri Ranjeet Dutta was the owner of the firm. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of turmeric powder by paying price to one Ashish Dutta, who was the salesman of the said firm. The powder was kept in the firm for sale for human consumption. The Food Inspector, after observing all required formalities, sent the sample of turmeric powder for analysis to the Public Analysts and the report of the Public Analysts was to the effect that the turmeric powder, sample of which was examined by him, was adulterated, being artificially coloured with lead chromate, which is not permissible to be used in turmeric powder. Thereafter, as per procedure laid down under the PFA Act, he issued notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. It deserves a mention here that at the time of purchase of the sample from the accused-petitioner, notice under Form-VI was issued, which was also acknowledged by the vendor. After obtaining necessary sanction, prosecution was launched against the present accused-petitioner and another, who has not faced this trial as he was found absconding. 4. The issue for determination before the trial Court was whether the accused-petitioner, Ashish Dutta sold the adulterated turmeric powder to the Food Inspector, PW1, which he kept for sale in his firm for human consumption. 5. To substantiate the accusation, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses. 4. The issue for determination before the trial Court was whether the accused-petitioner, Ashish Dutta sold the adulterated turmeric powder to the Food Inspector, PW1, which he kept for sale in his firm for human consumption. 5. To substantiate the accusation, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses. PW1, Sri BN Pathak, is the Food Inspector and PW2, Sri Birendra Nath Baruah, is the witness to the Form-VI notice. The defence examined the accused-petitioner himself. In his statement, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner is found to have taken the plea that the owner of the firm is Ranjeet Dutta and he is the brother of the owner, and in the absence of the owner, he was there in the firm for some time. As claimed, he even refused to sale the turmeric powder to the Food Inspector, but he was insisted to sale and accordingly he sold the same. 6. The evidence of PW1 is that he visited the firm of the accused-petitioner for inspection, being the Food Inspector, and suspecting the turmeric powder to be adulterated, he purchased 450 grams of turmeric powder, paying the price there for, after serving notice in Form-VI to the accused-petitioner/vendor, which he acknowledged by putting his signature thereon. Thereafter, he issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Cr.P.C. accompanied with the report of the Public Analysts. 7. PW2, who is a Peon of the Office of the Food Inspector. He, accompanied by the PW1, visited the firm. This PW2 signed the Form-VI notice as witness. There was an independent witness, who signed in the Form-VI notice, vide Ext. 1, although he has not been examined as witness. 8. Except the plea taken by the defence that he was not the proprietor of the firm from where the sample was purchased and that he sold it to the Food Inspector, PW1, only on being insisted, there appears to be no other plea taken by the accused-petitioner. 9. As the only defence witness, he is also found to have taken the same pleas that he is not the owner of the shop, his elder brother, Ranjeet Dutta was the owner of the firm, and during his absence for some time, he was in the shop and at that time, the Food Inspector appeared there, inspected the firm and then collected the sample as aforesaid. 10. 10. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is found to have been believed by the learned trial Court so far as the collection of sample is concerned. The acknowledgement of the signature of the accused-petitioner in the Form-VI notice is, in fact, also an acknowledgement that he admits its contents. There is no instance on the record to show that he objected to sale the turmeric powder to PW1 although he has made a statement to that effect. Such statement being a statement of fact needs to be corroborated, which is not done by him either during the cross-examination or in his own evidence as defence witness. 11. The fact remains that the sample of turmeric powder, which is found to be adulterated by the Public Analysts, was sold by the present accused-petitioner after receiving price there for. That being so, there is no escape from the liability of selling adulterated turmeric powder by the present accused-petitioner. 12. The plea that he is not the owner of the firm, which stored the adulterated turmeric powder for sale for human consumption, has no leg to stand, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa –vs- K. Rajeshwar Rao, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 365 . Paragraph-5 of the said judgment, being relevant in this case, is reproduced below: “The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mensrea is not an essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act pro-hibits commission of the offences under the Act. The essen-tial ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis-a-vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser (including the Food Inspector) and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. As stated earlier the sanctioning authority has to consider the material place before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanc-tion, the sanction is valid. As stated earlier the sanctioning authority has to consider the material place before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanc-tion, the sanction is valid. It is not necessary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner, servant, agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf.” 13. As per the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, sale and purchase are essential ingredients of an offence of instant nature. In the instant case, the vendor, i.e., the accused-petitioner sold the adulterated turmeric powder to the purchaser, i.e., the Food Inspector, PW1, is an admitted position, in view of acknowledgement of the accused-petitioner that he received price and he signed the Form-VI notice. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in ( AIR 1961 SC 631 ) at para-4 held as follows: “…………………………. The prohibition applies to all persons who sell adulterated food, and for contravention of the prohibition all such persons are penalised. Because the Legislature has sought to penalise a person who sells adulterated food by his agent, it cannot be assumed that it was intended to 328 penalise only those who may act through their agents. If the owner of a shop in which adulterated food is sold is without proof of mens rea liable to be punished for sale of adulterated food, we fail to appreciate why an agent or a servant of the owner is not liable to be punished for contravention of the same provision unless he is shown to have guilty knowledge.” 15. In the above judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prohibition applies to all persons who sell adulterated food, and for contravention of the prohibition all such persons are penalised. 16. In view of the facts of the case, as stated above, and the admitted position that the turmeric powder purchased as sample from the vendor/accused-petitioner, was found adulterated by the Public Analysts, remain undisputed, there is no scope for the present accused-petitioner to be absolved of the accusations made in the instant case. 17. 16. In view of the facts of the case, as stated above, and the admitted position that the turmeric powder purchased as sample from the vendor/accused-petitioner, was found adulterated by the Public Analysts, remain undisputed, there is no scope for the present accused-petitioner to be absolved of the accusations made in the instant case. 17. The judgments of the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh appear to be based on evidence on record and there is no such infirmity and impropriety in the judgments noticed, which is not based on the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference, in exercise of revisional power of this Court, is called for. 18. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. 19. Before parting with record, submission made by Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for accused-petitioner, with reference to the decision of this Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 159/2004 (Purushottam Lal Sharma –vs- State of Assam), to the effect that the accused-petitioner may be permitted to approach the State Government for commutation of his sentence in view of provisions of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. Such liberty being always available to the present accused-petitioner, he is at liberty to approach the Government. This Court refrains from passing any order on such submission. 20. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.