AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J.—This is an appeal against and order of acquittal. The accused was charged u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended) for short "the Act" and the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar has acquitted the accused of the charges.
The requisite segment of Section 7 of ''the Act'' is extracted hereinbelow:
Prohibition of manufacture, sale, etc, of certiain articles of food - No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sale or distribute-
(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;
(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority (in the interest of public health);
(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder (or)
(vi) any adulterant.
(Emphasis added)
The explanation to Section 7 states that a person shall be deemed to store any ''adulterated food'' or ''misbranded food'' or any article of food referred to in Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) for manufacture there from of any article of food for sale. A consumer who purchases food for his own consumption or use is not liable to punishment u/s 7 read with Section 16 of "the Act" even if the food is found to be adulterated or mis-branded. Manufacturing for sale, or storing or selling or distribution of adulterated or mis-branded articles are punishable.
The Petitioner was admittedly and chowkidar of the Silchar Medical College Hospital. The prosecution side also admits that he was an employee of the Medical College. The prosecution witnesses frankly stated that they had no knowledge that the accused was a milk seller, or he carried the milk for the purpose of sale or distribution or manufacture therefrom any article of food for sale. The accused was found carrying a few litres of milk by P.W. 1, S. Choudhury, the Food Inspector, who took sample of the milk. P.W. 1, Choudhury was accompanied by his peon P.W. 2, R. Dey. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was adulterated. Learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 7/16 of "the Act", who successfully appealed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge considered the provisions of Section 7/16 of ''the Act'', scrutinised the evidence and reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish any case against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused.
As alluded to in the earlier part of the judgment the prosecution witnesses admitted that the accused was a chowkidar working for gain in the Silchar Medical College. The consistent case of the accused-Respondent was that he was a chowkidar and the was asked to purchase milk by D.W. 1, Subhas Chandra Goswami, co-employee of the medical college who had paid Rs. 8/- towards the price of the milk which was meant for offerings to be made in ''Sani Puja''. D.W. 1, S.C. Goswami, appeared in Court and affirmed stoutly that he had requested the accused to purchase milk for offerings in connection with ''Sani Puja'' which was to be performed in his house on that particular Saturday, D.W. 2. The Bahadur Chettri, a chowkidar of F.C.I. also stated that the accused purchased milk from a milk vendor. He also stated that the accused told him that it was required for somebody. No cross-examination worth the name was made. On these materials, learned Sessions Judge was fully satisfied that the accused had established that he was merely a purchaser of the milk for and on behalf of D.W. 1, S. Goswami, who had requested him to purchase it for offerings in ''Sani Puja''. The prosecution has failed to establish that the plea was false. Learned Judge very rightly accepted the defence version on the basis of the statements of accused and the testimony of D.Ws. There is on plausible reason to differ from the view expressed by learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution on the other hand admitted that the accused was a chowkidar and not milk seller.
Under these Circumstances the appeal against the order of acquittal dated 11.1.80 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silcher in Criminal Appeal No. 6(3) of 1976 fails and it is dismissed.