The appellant thereafter filed the present appeal by special leave.
One of the bottles was handed over to the accused.
Another bottle was sent to a public analyst.
One of the companytentions which was raised on behalf of the accused before the High Court was that the sanction or companysent given by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance for the prosecution of the accused was number in companyformity with section 20 of the Act as the authority companytemplated by that section must be in respect of each individual case and a general authority given to the Superintendent of Police to sanction prosecution was number legal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd December, 1969 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The oil, according to the accused, was stored neither for sale number for being used for frying food articles.
The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused and after giving the requisite numberice, he purchased 375 gms of the groundnut oil in which the potato chops were being fried.
The public analyst found on analysis the groundnut oil to be adulterated as it did number companyform to the prescribed standard.
This plea of the accused was found by the trial companyrt as well as by the learned Addition Session Judge to be false.
The case for the prosecution is that on July 17, 1965 Food Inspector Behera went to the stall of the accused in the Old Secretariat Compound Cuttack and found potato chops being fried by an employee of the accused in groundnut oil in a frying pan.
After the oil was companyled, the Food Inspector divided it into three equal parts and poured each part of the oil in a clean bottle.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In the High Court it was number disputed on behalf of the accused that the groundnut oil purchased by the Food Inspector had been taken out of the frying Dan and that potato chops were being prepared with that oil.
This date was wrong because on reference to the record of the trial companyrt, we find that the date on which the sample of the oil was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused was July 17, 1965.
58 of 1970.
The accused was after that sent up for trial.
The bottles were then sealed.
325 of 67.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. Chittaranjan Das appellant was companyvicted by Magistrate First Class Cuttack under section 16 1 a of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Act 37 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
The appellant then went up in revision to the High Court but his revision petition too was dismissed by the Orissa High Court.
Chatterjee and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
C. Sikri, for the appellant.
50,0 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six weeks.
Appeal filed by the appellant was, dismissed by the Addi tional Sessions Judge Cuttack.
