Orissa High Court
Tengunu Sahoo And Another vs State Of Orissa on 13 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRREV No.508 of 2000
Tengunu Sahoo and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Prabhav Behera, Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. P.K. Muduli,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
13.05.2022
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. The present revision petition is directed against a judgment
dated 26th August 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Balangir dismissing Criminal Appeal No.53/52 of 1997-99
whereby the judgment dated 26th November 1997 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Loisingha
convicting the Petitioners for the offences under Section
16(I)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act)
and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for
six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to
undergo to R.I. for one month, was modified by reducing the term
of imprisonment to three months RI without altering the fine
amount.
2. On 16th September 2000 while staying the realization of fine,
this Court directed the Petitioners to be released on bail subject to
the terms.
3. As noted in the order dated 6th May 2022 in the present revision
petition, Petitioner No.2-Bhika Sahoo expired during the
pendency of the present revision petition and the petition
accordingly stood abated as far as he was concerned. It is
therefore only Petitioner No.1-Tengunu Sahoo who is pursuing
the present petition.
4. The case of the prosecution was that Chittaranjan Das (P.W.1),
who was the Food Inspector, Bolangir visited Agalpur on 26th
May 1994 along with the Food Peon Antabal Majhi (P.W.2). He
inspected the Tiffin Stall of the Accused at around 10AM. He
found that the accused Bhika Sahu (Petitioner No.2) had exposed
Aluchap, Rasgola, Balesai, Gaja, Tea etc. for sale for human
consumption. P.W.1 called persons from the locality to witness
the inspection. One Laxmikanta Saraf (P.W.3) came to witness
the inspection. Bhika Sahoo was asked to produce the food
licence, but he could not do so.
5. After preparing a list of food articles exhibited for sale (Ext.1),
P.W.1 put the signature of P.W.3 thereon. Later, he verified the
food license register. It was found that Petitioner No.1 had a food
license which was valid up to 31st December 1988 which licence
had not been renewed thereafter. Since both accused were selling
food articles without license, they were found to have contravened
Section 7(iii)(v) of the PFA Act and Rule 50 of the PFA Rules.
6. The local Health Authority-cum-CDMO after examining the
documents granted sanction for filing of the prosecution case in
the Court of the JMFC. The accused denied owning any Tiffin
Stall at Agalpur or the visit of P.Ws.1 and 2 to their shop and
claimed that the prosecution case was a false one.
7. Three witnesses were examined for the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and
2 were the Food Inspector and the Food Peon respectively
whereas P.W.3 was a local witness who attended the inspection.
The JMFC was satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case
and proceeded, by the judgment dated 26th November 1997, to
convict the two accused for the offence under Section 16 (I)(a)(ii)
of the PFA Act in 2(c)CC No.116/1 of 1994-97 and sentenced
them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
8. It was argued before the appellate court that P.W.1 in his
deposition stated that when he visited the shop Petitioner No.1-
Tengunu was absent and only his father Bhika was present. The
appellate court brushed aside this objection by stating that the
inspection took place in 1994 whereas P.W.1 deposed three years
later in April 1997 and therefore the discrepancy in his evidence
was not fatal to the prosecution case. It was further concluded by
the appellate court that admittedly there was a relationship
between the accused as son and father and that the licence in
favour of Tengunu was valid only till 31st December, 1988.
9. The appellate court also discussed the wording of Section 7(iii)
of the PFA Act which postulates that any person selling article or
food without a licence would be committing an offence which is
punishable under Section 16 (I)(a)(ii) of the PFA Act.
10. The crucial part of this entire discussion is regarding the
presence of Tengunu at the time of inspection of the shop in
question. If indeed Tengunu was not present, the question of his
selling any food articles without a licence in the shop in question
did not arise at all. Interestingly, in the subsequent period from 2nd
July 1996 onwards the license for running a shop was issued in
favour of another son of Bhika, viz., Indramani Sahoo.
11. Therefore, the evidence was totally insufficient as far as the
role and presence of Tengunu Sahoo at the shop at the time of
inspection is concerned.
12. As far as the present revision petition is concerned, it is only
Tengunu Sahoo who remains in the fray and the evidence vis-à-
vis him appears to be non-existent.
13. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that no case is made out
for sustaining the conviction and sentence awarded to Tengunu
Sahoo by the trial court which was affirmed by the appellate
court. Consequently, vis-à-vis Tengunu Sahoo, the impugned
judgment dated 26th November 1997 of the JMFC, Loisingha and
the judgment dated 26th August 2000 of the ASJ, Balangir in
Criminal Appeal No.53/52 of 1997-99 are hereby set aside. The
bail bond of Tengunu Sahoo stands discharged.
14. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
S.K. Guin/Sr. Stenographer
