Binod Kumar vs State of Bihar

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.2001 passed by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 45/96, confirming, the judgment of the trial court dated 23.2.96 rendered by SDJM in Case No. 16M/94. The revisionist was convicted for the offence u/s 16(1)(a) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo Rl for one year and he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Rl for 3 months.

It has been submitted by the revisionist''s lawyer that Food Inspector (PW 2) went to the shop of the revisionist on 30.9.92 at 11 a.m. and took sample of Haldi Powder in polythene bag and sent it to the Public Analyst. Subsequently, Public Analyst reported that the Haldi Powder did not conform to the prescribed standard. However, prosecution failed to examine independent witness to support the fact of taking sample from the shop of the revisionist. Thus, he violated the provision of Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act.

Admittedly, no independent witness has been examined to support the sample taking from the shop of the revisionist. Moreover, Food Inspector also violated Rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act, Rules 1955, which mandated that the sample must be kept in a clean and dry bottle. Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles, or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed.

It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the Food Inspector kept the sample in a polythene bag and sent it to the Public analyst in the same packet although under proper seal. The evidence of P.W. 2 was clear to the effect that admittedly no independent witness was examined to support the alleged sample taking by the Food Inspector. However, violation of Rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act, Rules, 1955, is more than obvious. Admittedly, sample was kept and sealed in a polethene bag. In view of the above violation of the Act and Rule. I am of the opinion that conviction recorded by the two courts below is bad in law.

In the result, this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the two courts below are set aside. Revi sionist shall stand acquitted.