HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.330/1997 Bisram VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miss Mansi Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prabhat Singh, P.L. for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R 17/02/2011 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 26.03.1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.94/1996 arising out of judgment dated 02.04.1996 passed by C.J.M., Seoni in Criminal Case No.2804/1987, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months. 2. According to prosecution case on 09.01.1987 Food Inspector Shri B.L. Barman (PW-1) found that applicant/accused was selling adulterated coconut oil from his grocery shop at village Belpeth, Police Station Kurai. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity to the applicant purchased 375 ml coconut oil as sample for Rs.12.90 paisa vide receipt Ex.P-8. He then kept the coconut oils in three dried, clean bottles in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thereafter the bottles were kept in airtight bags and sealed. The panchnama in this regard Ex.P-9 was prepared. Shri B.L. Barman (PW-1) sent one of the sealed bottle to the Public Analyst. He deposited the remaining two sealed bottles of sample in the office of Local Health Authority. The sample was received by Public Analyst on 15.05.1987 and its report Ex.P-13 was given on 19.06.1987. On receiving the report a notice under Section 13(2) along with a copy of the report Ex.P-15 of Public Analyst was sent to applicant. As per Public Analyst report Ex.P-13 sample of coconut oil was found to be technically adulterated as such the complaint was filed before C.J.M. Seoni on 26.10.1987. 3. Before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution only one witness viz. B.L. Barman, Food Inspector was examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the applicant as defence witness. Defence of the applicant is that coconut oil is not used as edible in Seoni. 4. Learned C.J.M. relying upon the evidence of Food Inspector B.L. Barman held that all the requisite steps of procedure were followed and sample was adulterated and eventually convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment of conviction passed by C.J.M. was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant Miss Mansi Agrawal has challenged the conviction of the applicant only on the count that before obtaining the sample the oil was not stirred so as to make it homogeneous and as such the conviction and sentence of the applicant is bad in law. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant and justified the finding of conviction arrived at by the courts below. 2 7. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that before the trial Court complainant/Food Inspector only appeared as a witness in support of the prosecution case. Food Inspector Shri Barman has not deposed that any stirring was done by him before obtaining sample of coconut oil so as to make it homogeneous. This fact is also not mentioned by him in his panchnama Ex.P-9 prepared on the spot. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Dharamchand v. Food Inspector, 1985 F.A.J. 455 M.P. and Satyendra Gupta vs. Mohanlal 2007(III) MPWN 11 where it is held that if the collected sample was not representative sample then applicant is entitled for acquittal. Thus, both the courts below have committed a mistake while convicting the applicant because the sample taken from the oil stored for sale in the shop of the applicant without stirring and making it homogeneous was not representative sample and it was clear violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 8. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.03.1997 is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the charge under section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. (S.C. Sinho) Judge Psm 3 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.330/1997 Bisram VERSES The State of Madhya Pradesh O R D E R Post for: 17/02/2011 (S.C.SINHO) JUDGE 4