Skip to content


The State Vs. Madhusudhan Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberGovt. Appeal No. 25 of 1964 and Criminal Ref. No. 79 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Ori188; 1966CriLJ1041
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 18
AppellantThe State
RespondentMadhusudhan Ram
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateH. Kanungo, Adv.
DispositionReference accepted
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........of having exhibited adulterated 'guntur' ghee forsale and for having sold the same to the karanjia food inspector and thus having committed an offence under section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. thecriminal reference arises out of a recommendation by the learned sessions judge for retrialof the case in the circumstances thereinafterstated. the defence of the accused is completedenial.2. the circumstances in which the accused was charged for alleged adulteration of the gunthur ghee are these : on january 20, 1963 the food and sanitary inspector p.w. 1 inspected the accused's shop and collected three samples including one sample of gunthur ghee which he had exhibited for sale. all the samples were taken in three bottles and sealed in the accused's presence. one of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Barman, J.

1. The Government appeal isagainst an order of acquittal of the accusedrespondent who is a grocer shop-keeper and abusinessman of Karanjia on the charge of having exhibited adulterated 'Guntur' ghee forsale and for having sold the same to the Karanjia Food Inspector and thus having committed an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. TheCriminal reference arises out of a recommendation by the learned Sessions Judge for retrialof the case in the circumstances thereinafterstated. The defence of the accused is completedenial.

2. The circumstances in which the accused was charged for alleged adulteration of the Gunthur Ghee are these : On January 20, 1963 the Food and Sanitary Inspector P.W. 1 inspected the accused's shop and collected three samples Including one sample of Gunthur Ghee which he had exhibited for sale. All the samples were taken in three bottles and sealed in the accused's presence. One of the samples under seal was delivered to the accused. The second sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Govt. of Orissa for analysis. The third one kept by the Food Inspector. It is said that the Food Inspector fastened the bottles and properly sealed all the three bottles.

3. The rules under which they were sealed and sent to the Public Analyst are provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules made under the Act. The rules so far as relevant for the present purpose are Rules 7 and 18, namely :

'Rule 7. Duties of Public Analyst -

(1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person Public Analyst or any officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition on the seals thereon.

(2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by Inspector or by any other person under the Act.

(3) After the analysis has been completed he shall forthwith supply to the person concerned a report in Form III of the result of such analysis.'

'Rule 18 Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately by post : A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him.'

4. The learned Magistrate found on evidence that the sample of Gunthur Ghee was taken from the shop of the accused from the stock open for sale in compliance with the rules stated above. One of the samples was also said to have been seat to the Public Analyst by post under special seals given by the Food Inspector. There is no evidence however as to whether the Food Inspector in compliance with Rule 18 had sent to the Public Analyst a specimen impression of the seal used by him. The object of this rule is to ensure the accuracy of the seal on the sample sent to the Public Analyst by comparison with the impression of the seal sent by the Food Inspector. Indeed there is nothing to show whether in fact the Food Inspector had really sent to the Public Analyst a specimen impression of the seal used by him.

5. In view of this apparent lacuna, in the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference requested the matter to be placed before this Court for quashing the order of acquittal and remanding the case to the trial Court for retrial.

6. After hearing the parties at length I am of opinion that this is a fit case where the records should be sent back to the trial court for rehearing of the case on the evidence on record and such other evidence as may be adduced by the parties according to law.

7. In the result therefore, the Government Appeal is allowed and the reference isaccepted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //