DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner-accused filed the revision against the judgement of conviction and sentence in STC 130 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Kaikulur in convicting the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (v) and 2 (ia) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act ) and sentencing him to suffer R. I for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R. I for two months which was confirmed in Crl. Appeal No, 158 of 1997 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows; the Food Inspector, Division II, Krishna District, Machilipatnam laid the complaint against the accused alleging that the accused was the proprietor of sri Subrahmanyeswara Enterprises, Singarayapalem village, Mudinepalli Mandal, krishna District and that on 4. 10. 1994 at about 2. 30 P. M the Food Inspector along with his staff inspected the shop and found that the accused was transacting the business and that he kept green gram dall for human consumption and suspecting the same to be adulterated, the Food Inspector took samples as per the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory. On receipt of the said report, the Food Inspector after obtaining the sanction laid the charge sheet. The accused appeared before the Court. He filed the application to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory and after obtaining the report, the trial commenced. On behalf of the complainant Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Ex. P1 to P20 were marked. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned magistrate Kaikulur came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence alleged against him and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced. Aggrieved against the judgement of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed Appeal before the District and Sessions Judge and the learned sessions Judge after hearing dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the judgement of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner-accused filed the revision contending that the judgement of conviction and sentence is illegal, improper and incorrect. The Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the ingredients of the offence under the Act. The Courts below erred in relying on the evidence of pws 1 to 3 which is interested and discrepant. The Courts below failed to appreciate the report of the Central Food Laboratory as against the report of the State Laboratory. The Courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to obtain fresh sanction order on the basis of the Central Food laboratory report. For the above said reasons, the judgement of conviction and sentence may be set aside.

( 4 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the Courts below committed error in convicting the revision petitioner-accused for the offence under the Food adulteration Act and if so whether the revision is liable to be allowed?

( 5 ) THE revision petitioner-accused was found transacting business on 4. 10. 1994 at about 2. 30 P. M. The Food Inspector took samples of green gram dall which was kept for human consumption and when one of the samples were sent to the State public Analyst, the report revealed that the food article was adulterated and therefore he was prosecuted. Pws 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and both the Courts relying on the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 convicted the revision petitioner-accused. Pw1 P. Chinna Reddy was the Food Inspector who took samples from the shop of the accused. K. Venkateswarlu is an independent witness, who was present at the time of taking of the samples by the Food inspector. However, he did not support the case of the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document