The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for obtaining a representative sample of curd for testing under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing the necessity of churning to ensure homogeneity.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This revision has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 06.08.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1994, upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner, namely, Santosh Kumar Sharma, under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PFA Act") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. The case of the prosecution against the accused-petitioner, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :

The accused-petitioner owned a sweet shop under the name and style "Santosh Sweets" at AT Road, Jorhat. At his said shop, the accused-petitioner had employed a sales-man, namely, Kishan Sharma, who used to sell there, besides other items, curd made of cow milk. On 24.8.1992, Food Inspector, Sri N.C. Goswami, accompanied by one Sri A.C. Sarma, who too was a Food Inspector, visited the said shop and suspecting that the curd, which was stored and kept for sale there, was adulterated, decided to take sample therefrom. Sri N.C. Goswami disclosed his identification to the said sales-man, Sri Kishan Sarma, who was present at the shop and running the business of the shop. After giving the said sales-man the requisite Form No. VI under Rule 12 of the PFA Rules, the said Sri N.C. Goswami purchased, in the presence of the witnesses, namely, Sri A.C. Sarma and one Sri Om Prakash Rathi, 750 gms of the said curd from the said sales-man by making payment of a sum of Rs. 15/-. The said sales-man acknowledged receipt of the payment so made. The Food Inspector, namely, Sri N.C. Goswami, divided the sample of curd into three equal parts and, following the procedure contained in the PFA Rules, prepared three samples. In course of time, one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who, upon examining the sample, found the same adulterated, whereupon Shri A.C. Sarma aforementioned, who too was a Food Inspector, took charge of the matter, obtained necessary sanction from the authority concerned and submitted offence report.

3. During trial, while the present accused-petitioner, Santosh Sharma, appeared in the Court, the sales-man, Kishan Sarma, absconded. The trial, however, proceeded against the present accused-petitioner and particulars of offence under Sections 7(i)(v)/16 of the PFA Act were explained to the present accused-petitioner, who pleaded not guilty thereto. The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses including Sri N.C. Goswami and Sri A.C. Sarma. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that the present accused-petitioner was not the owner of the shop aforementioned and that the sample of curd had not been taken by the Food Inspector concerned in accordance with law and as the sample, in question, was not a representative sample of the curd, which was allegedly kept stored for sale, the case against the accused-petitioner had not been proved in accordance with law. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence aforementioned and convicted him accordingly. The sentence, as already mentioned hereinabove, followed. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal, which too was rejected by the impugned judgment and order, dated 06.08.1996 aforementioned. The accused-petitioner has, now, approached this Court with the help of the present revision petition.

4. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned judgments and orders. I have also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and Mr. F.