Ram Lakhan Chawrasia and Others vs State of Bihar

Amitav Kumar Gupta, J—On repeated call, none appears on behalf of the petitioners. Learned A.P.P. is in attendance. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 04, learned counsel, is appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court on behalf of the petitioners.

The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.11.1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 1997, affirming the judgment and order dated 03.06.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in P.F.A. Case No. 31 of 1991, T.R. No. 648 of 1997, whereby, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(I) of the Provisions of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The facts of the case is that the Food Inspector had visited the shop of the petitioners and purchased 450 grams of ''zeera''. The purchase receipts were obtained and the ''zeera'' was divided and kept in three bottles. The signature of the petitioners were obtained on the paper slips affixed to the bottles. After preparing memorandum of seal, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and rest two parts of the sample were sent to the local Health Authority. That the Public Analyst submitted a report on 28.03.1990 that the ''zeera'' was adulterated as insects were found in the sample. The informant obtained sanction from the local authority, whereafter the case was filed against the petitioners before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad. Cognizance was taken and the petitioners faced the trial for the charge and were found guilty for the charge and offence under Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Provisions of Food Adulteration Act. On appeal the conviction was upheld by the impugned order.

Having heard learned A.P.P. and learned amicus curiae and on perusal of the record, it would be evident that the informant/Food Inspector, i.e. P.W. - 2, has supported the factum of purchase of 450 grams of ''zeera'' at the cost of Rs. 6.50 paise (Six rupees and fifty paise) from the shop of the petitioners. The purchase receipt is Exbt.-2. The ''zeera'' was divided into three equal parts in accordance to the provisions of the Act. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The memorandum of seal is Exbt.-3. The notices in Form-6, as required under the Act, were sent to the petitioner No. 02, Mahendra Chawrasia and his signature appears on counterfoil of notice, marked Exbt.-1. The report of the Public Analyst is Exbt.-4. Exbt.-5 is the sanction letter issued by the local authority. Exbts. 7 & 8 are the notices and Exbts.-9 to 13 are the notifications.

It is clear that the procedure and provisions of the Act was complied with for launching the prosecution. The report of the Public Analyst reveals that the zeera was found contaminated/adulterated with insects. The petitioners did not challenge the said report despite the service of notice given to them. P.W.-2 is the Food Inspector and his deposition is corroborated by P.W.-3 who had accompanied P.W.-2 to the shop of the petitioner No. 01 where petitioner No. 02 was selling the zeera.

Thus in the attending facts and circumstances, there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is, hereby, affirmed.

It transpires from the record that the petitioners have remained in custody from 26.01.1999 to 26.02.1999. The case is of the year 1990 and the petitioners have faced the rigorous of trial and undergone mental agony for 24 years. In the given circumstances, they are sentenced for the period of custody already undergone by them. With the said modification in the sentence, the revision is, hereby, dismissed.