1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2009 (DILIP JYOTUJI BARDE VS. THE CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR THR.FOOD INSPECTOR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.R.Tiwari, Advocate for applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2009. 1. The applicant, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. One Thousand or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, and which conviction and sentence was left undisturbed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the applicant's appeal, has challenged those two judgments by this revision application. 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that Section 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act requires the article sold by a vendor to be not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser or to be to his prejudice, or to be not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be for being branded as adulterated.. He submitted that for bringing the article within this definition it was necessary for the Food Inspector to show that the accused had represented that linseed oil was kept for sale, the Food Inspector purchased the said oil, and then completed other requirements regarding taking sample, sealing it etc. He submitted that paragraph 5 of the complaint (page 63 of the compilation) would show that the complainant Food Inspector drew the sample from one tin, which was containing 15 Kgs. of Linseed oil and then he issued Form No.VI etc. It is not permissible to read the contents of paragraph 5 in isolation. In paragraph 4 it is stated that on inquiry from the vendor i.e. accused, he disclosed that the tins contain linseed oil and those 3 were for sale. In paragraph 5 the complainant had also stated that the cost of Rs.10.70 of 375 gms. oil, taken for sample purpose, was paid to the accused and cash memo was obtained. Therefore, there is no error in the procedure followed, so as to exclude the item from the definition “Adulterated” in Section 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the account of the incident, given by the Food Inspector in the Court, is contrary to the complaint, has to be rejected, if paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint are properly read. Since there is no other ground raised, the revision application is rejected. JUDGE RR.