Orissa High Court
Manabhanjan Behera vs State Of Odisha on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRREV No.458 of 2000
Manabhanjan Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. Bikash Karna, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P. K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
Order No. 06.05.2022
13. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment
date 5th August, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Keonjhar dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1993 thereby
affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned
SDJM., Keonjhar on 12th October, 1993 in 2 (c) CC No.197 of
1987 under Section 16(1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act ('PFA Act') sentencing the Petitioner to undergo
rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months.
2. The background facts are that on 14th October, 1987 at 11 AM,
the Food Inspector, Keonjhar visited the shop viz., Gayatri Shop in
Keonjhar market and purchased from the present Petitioner i.e. the
Accused, 750 grams of Mustard oil and 600 grams of Atta. The
samples were prepared from the said articles in compliance with
the PFA Act and were sent to the Public Analyst for examination.
Both samples were found to be adulterated. After obtaining
sanction from the local health authority, the prosecution report was
submitted against the present Accused.
3. To substantiate the charge, four witnesses were produced, which
included the Food Inspector (P.W.3), an employee of Vigilance
Department (P.W.1), the ADMO Public Health, who accompanied
the Food Inspector to the shop of the Accused (P.W.2) and the
Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO)-P.W.4.
4. In para 5 of the impugned appellate order, it is noted that
although several points were raised, only three were urged in the
appeal viz., (i) that Section 7 of the PFA Act, which states that "no
person shall by himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture
for sale, or store, sell of distributes" does not include the present
Petitioner, who is not the owner of the shop in question; (ii) the
sanction was not in accordance with law; and (iii) Rule 9 (e) of the
PFA Rules was not complied with.
5. Before this Court also it is urged that the Petitioner not being the
owner of the shop, could not have been prosecuted. The appellate
Court has rightly repelled the said argument by pointing out the
expression 'person' under Section 7 of the PFA Act would include
anyone who sells adulterated food and, therefore, the ownership of
the shop is immaterial.
6. The Court agrees with the above conclusion of the appellate
Court and rejects the plea of the Petitioner in this regard.
7. As regards the non-grant of sanction by the appropriate
authority, the appellate Court has referred to the evidence of
P.W.4, which shows that he actually went through the draft order
and signed it. Exhibit 10 being the sanction order reveals that the
designation of the Officer sanctioning the prosecution has been
indicated as CDMO. With these findings being factual, the Court
finds no reason to interfere.
8. As regards non-compliance of Rule 9(e) of the PFA Rules, the
appellate Court has found that it is not mandatory and only
directory. That point has not even been urged before this Court.
Here certain fresh points regarding there being no independent
witness to the samples which were taken and about the samples not
being taken in a clean bottle have been urged. These were not
urged either before the trial Court or the appellate Court and since
they turn on facts, the Court declines to permit the Petitioner to
raise them at this stage.
9. Having examined the concurrent judgments of the trial Court
and the appellate Court, the Court is not inclined to interfere either
with the conviction or the sentence awarded to the Petitioner.
10. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim
order passed earlier stands vacated.
11. The Superintendent of the concerned Branch is directed to
immediately communicate this order to the concerned Subordinate
Court.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
M. Panda
