9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Qualifications of the Food Inspector. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 11 and 22. 4. Application of Section 10(7) regarding presence of witnesses. 5. Compliance with Section 13 and Rule 7 regarding seal comparison. 6. Validity of prosecution consent under Section 20. 7. Imposition of fine below prescribed amount. Analysis: 1. The case involves the conviction of the applicant for selling adulterated coriander under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant was sentenced to 5 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 200 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The conviction was based on evidence provided by witnesses and the Chemical Analyst's report confirming adulteration. 2. The issue of the Food Inspector's qualifications was raised by the applicant's counsel, questioning the appointment of Veer Singh as a Food Inspector. However, the court found no reason to disbelieve Veer Singh's statement regarding his appointment and duties, as the applicant failed to challenge this evidence during cross-examination. 3. Concerning procedural compliance, the applicant argued that Sections 11 and 22 were not followed, challenging the notice given before sample collection and the quantity of sample sent for analysis. The court clarified that the notice in Form 6 is meant to record a past transaction and not required before sample purchase. Additionally, minor variations in sample quantity do not invalidate the analysis. 4. The applicant contested the application of Section 10(7) regarding witness presence during sample collection. The court noted that two Motbir witnesses were present, and the examination of a peon was deemed sufficient, dismissing the criticism of the applicant's counsel. 5. Compliance with Section 13 and Rule 7, which involve seal comparison, was also questioned. The court found no merit in this argument, as the Public Analyst confirmed seal comparison, and no disputes were raised in lower courts. 6. The validity of the prosecution consent under Section 20 was challenged based on the wording of the consent document. The court interpreted the consent as valid, emphasizing that the authority to prosecute was granted by the proper authority, even if the specific offense was not explicitly mentioned. 7. Lastly, the court noted an error in imposing a fine below the prescribed amount under Section 16(1)(f) but refrained from enhancing it due to the applicant's circumstances. Ultimately, the court upheld the applicant's conviction for selling adulterated coriander, dismissing the revision. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses all the issues raised in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the court.
|
