STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GOURANGA SAHU
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 30,2002

STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
VERSUS
GOURANGA SAHU Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MONORANJAN PATHAK VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL NATH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH AGARWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
GARJAN PRASAD GUPTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL AGARWALLA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
DANESHWAR PRASAD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(CHH)-2010-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA JALAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KHANDAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-101] [REFERRED]
GADADHAR DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN GOPAL GATTANI VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-2007-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
INDRADEV YADAV VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-4-55] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The respondent was tried for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for selling adulterated 'bason' and 'mustard oil'. Upon trial, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay the fine imposed. Against his conviction and sentence, appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed, which necessitated the filing of a Revision Petition by him. The High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, allowed the Revision Petition by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The accused was held not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and acquitted.
(2.)Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the State has filed this appeal, mainly on the ground that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court could not have disturbed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial as well as the appellate Courts.
(3.)Finding that the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act had not been complied with, the High Court acquitted the respondent holding that a statutory valuable right available to him had been taken away. Despite referring to the evidence of PW-1 and the documents available on record, the High Court reversed the judgment of the Courts below with respect to the compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act provides; that on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the food article was adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority was obliged to forward its copy to the accused, in such manner as may be prescribed, informing him that if he so desires, he can make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of the food kept by the Local (Health) Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.