Indira Jain, J.

This Revision Application takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 17-02-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2009 and judgment and order dated 18-04-2009 passed by the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara in Regular Criminal Case No.228 of 2005.

2. For the sake of convenience applicant is referred as an 'accused' and respondent as 'prosecution' in their original status as were referred before the trial and appellate Courts.

3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :-

Complainant was appointed as Food Inspector. On 09-09-2005 he visited M/s Sindh Kirana Stores at Bada Bazar, Bhandara. Accused was dealing in edible oil and other grocery articles on wholesale and retail basis. During inspection of the shop complainant found 40 packed tins each tin weighing 15 Kg. of groundnut oil (Royal Gold Brand Mungfalli Tel). Two barrels containing refined Soyabean oil each having 180 Kg. oil were also found stored for sale. In the present case controversy is in respect of 40 packed tins of groundnut oil. So far as Soyabean barrels are concerned separate prosecution was launched and accused was acquitted of the offences alleged therein.

4. It is the case of prosecution that complainant purchased 750 gms. of groundnut oil filled the same in glass bottle and duly sealed the sample. He issued notice to the accused under Section 14-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'PFA Act' for brevity) and asked him to produce purchase bills of groundnut oil. Accused failed to disclose the name and address of the person from whom oil was purchased. Though accused made an endorsement on notice that he would submit the purchase bills within 2-3 days he failed to comply. Reminder was issued to the accused and he informed that he did not have purchase bills. In the meanwhile report from Public Analyst was received stating that groundnut oil sample was not conforming to the prescribed standard.

5. Accused was not prosecuted for the charge of storing for sale, adulterated oil. Complaint was restricted to the charge that accused contravened the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act and made him liable to punishment under Section 16(1-C) of the Act. It was also alleged in the complaint that accused prevented the complainant from proceeding against manufacturer and distributor of the adulterated groundnut oil and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(d) of the PFA Act. Charge came to be framed against the accused vide Exhibit-37. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. He raised multiple defences as under :-

(i) Groundnut oil was available in open market and one can purchase the same without bills.

(ii) Law does not prohibit such purchase even when purchased without bills.

(iii) Accused is not prosecuted for allegedly storing adulterated oil which should be the main charge and the solitary charge under Section 14-A would not sustain in law.

(iv) Accused has shown purchase bills to the complainant on his first visit but he did not accept the bills.

(v) All the tins were packed each containing a label clearly showing the name of manufacturer.

(vi) False implication.

6. In support of its case prosecution examined complainant Bhaskar Gopal Nandanwar Food Inspector and a panch witness Prakash Motiram Panjawani. On going through the evidence adduced in the case learned Magistrate convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16(1-C) and 16(1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

7. Accused challenged the judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court in appeal. Considering the evidence and material placed on record appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this rev