THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.496 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Petitioners who are wife and husband were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Shadnagar in C.C.No.268 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.29 on its behalf. The learned Magistrate, having analysed the said evidence let in by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. The said judgment dated 26.11.1998 was challenged before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said Criminal Appeal, confirmed the said sentence as imposed by the trial court by his judgment dated 17.03.2004. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 11.07.1996 at 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 who is the Gazetted Food Inspector, Division – I, Mahabubnagar District visited the shop by name M/s. C.Prabhakar Kirana D.No.3-26, Kothapet village of which the second petitioner is the proprietor. First petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. At that time first petitioner was managing the business in the shop. P.W.1 found a loose tin containing 4 kgs of groundnut oil for sale to public for human consumption. Suspecting that the said groundnut oil is adulterated, P.W.1 intended to take sample of the groundnut oil. Then he secured the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. By serving a notice in Form VI on the first petitioner for taking sample of groundnut oil for analysis and purchased 450 gms of groundnut oil and paid Rs.18/- towards cost of that oil. P.W.1 divided the sample into three equal parts and poured each part in clean, dry and empty bottles and pasted label bearing No.794/MBNR/D1/12194/96 to each sample bottle, sealed the ends and then each sample bottle was wrapped in thick brown paper separately folded neatly and pasted the ends with gum. A paper slip issued and signed by the Director, IP.M. and local (Health) Authority A.P. Hyderabad was pasted to each sample bottle as per the procedure and sealed four sides and fastened with twice thread. The first petitioner, the two panchas and P.W.1 signed on each sample bottle in a manner that part of the signature contains on paper slip and wrapper paper. P.W.1 drafted panchanama on the post in English the contents of which were read over and explained to the first petitioner as well as the pachas in Telugu and obtained their signatures on the same. On 12.07.1996 one part of the sample with seals intact along with memorandum in From VII was sent n sealed packet to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. A separate sealed cover with memorandum in Form VII was sent separately to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory Hyderabad and the remaining two parts of the sample with seals intact along with memorandum in Form VII in duplicate were sent to the Director ad Local (Health) Authority. Both the accused failed to disclose the source of supply of groundnut oil. The Public Analyst after analysis of the sample, opined that the sample does not confirm to Bellier’s test and contain castor oil and therefore adulterated. The Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad accorded written consent u/s 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 r/w G.O. ms. No. 62, dated 30.01.1985 and directed P.W.1 to launch prosecution against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i). 7 (i) & (v) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accordingly P.W.1 filed the present complaint against the petitioners for the said offence. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perusing the judgments of the courts below, this court is also of the view that the petitioners are guilty of the said offence for which they were tried and as such no interference is called for. 5 However, as the alleged offence took place on 11.07.1996 i.e. about 14 years back and as the petitioners were in jail for about 10 days, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of six months to that of the period already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 07.06.2010 Kvsn