The petitioner's failure to avail the opportunity to get the second sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, rendered his argument of non-compliance not tenable, as no prejudice was caused to him.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against appellate judgment dated 30.10.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cri. Appeal No. 134/2015, whereby conviction of petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) r/w 2(i-a) and 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad vide judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed in Cri. Case No. 1704/2010 and consequent sentences were affirmed.

2. Vide said judgment, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 2(i-a), 7(i) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Succinctly stated relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 08.09.2010 at about 3.15 in the afternoon, Food Inspector Jagdish P. Lovewanshi visited the establishment of the petitioner situated in Pili Khandi, Meenakshi Chowk, Hoshangabad viz. ‘Agrawal Hotel’, where the petitioner was selling sweets/snacks. Suspecting about the quality of a salty snack (Namkeen-Sev), following due process, the Food Inspector purchased 900 gms. of Sev by paying the price. He divided the same in three parts (300 gms), kept each part in a clean polythene, tied them with thread, then kept them in three corrugated boxes, packed and labeled them, placed paper slips, signed them and also obtained sign of the petitioner, then tied them with thread and sealed them by placing a wax seal. He prepared memo of the proceedings conducted on the spot, sent a sample to the State Food Laboratory and deposited rest of the samples with Deputy Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Hoshangabad. On analysis, the sample was found adulterated (Ex.P/14). After receiving the report of Public Analyst, the Food Inspector obtained prosecution sanction, filed complaint against the petitioner and forwarded him a copy of the report of Public Analyst.

4. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution also produced and proved following documents:

(i) Ex.P/1 Letter of appointment of Food Inspector Jagdish P. Lovewanshi and his name is reflected at S. No. 28.

(ii) Ex.P/2 M.P. Gazette wherein name of Food Inspector Jagdish P. Lovewanshi is reflected at S. No. 28.

(iii) Ex.P/3 Certificate given to Food Inspector Jagdish Prasad Lovewanshi with regard to training of collecting sample and inspection.

(iv) Ex.P/4 Order of the Deputy Director, Food and Drugs Administration regarding posting of Food Inspector Jagdish P. Lovewanshi at Hoshangabad.

(v) Ex.P/5 Form-VI regarding taking of sample for public analyst.

(vi) Ex.P/6 is a receipt.

(vii) Ex.P/7 is a label.

(viii) Ex.P/8 is a panchnama.

(xiii) Ex.P/13 is a letter.

(ix) Ex.P/9 is a memorandum as per Rule 17.

(x) Ex.P/10 is a receipt of post office.

(xi) Ex.P/11 is a receipt of post office.

(xii) Ex.P/12 is a receipt.

(xiv) Ex.P.14 Report of Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Bhopal.

(xv) Ex.P/15 Request for sanction for prosecution.

(xvi) Ex.P/16 Order for sanction for prosecution.

(xvii) Ex.P/17 Complaint against the petitioner by Food Inspector Jagdish P. Lovewanshi.

(xviii) Ex.P/18 Information to Deputy Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Hoshangabad regarding complaint against the petitioner.

(xix) Ex.P19 Notice sent to the petitioner.

(xx) Ex.P/20 is the postal receipt.

5. The petitioner was called upon. He appeared. The charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia), 7(i) of the Act was framed against him. He denied the charge and pleaded for trial.

6. After trial, the petitioner was convicted and his conviction and sentence has been upheld by the appellate Court as stated in Para-1 above.

7. The petitioner has preferred this petition on several grounds but during arguments, no other ground except non-compliance of the provision under Section 13(2) of the Act has been pressed into service.

8. The learned counsel for the petiti