He bought one bottle of synthetic syrup, on paying Rs.40/ , Ex.
He sampled it according to the procedure.
The learned IV Addl.
Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in appeal modified the sentence and reduced it to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/ with default stipulation.
He found four bottles of Sarbath synthetic syrup each of 700 ml.
He had purchased it after giving Rs.40/ .
Since accused abjured guilt, trial was held.
It was further submitted that the articles were number meant for sale and, therefore, the said Rules have numberapplication.
The High Court did number accept the stand.
Noting that the minimum sentence has been imposed, revision petition was dismissed.
After appreciation of the evidence, the appellant was found guilty, companyvicted and sentenced accordingly.
The revision petition did number bring any relief.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that numberenquiry was companyducted of the samples as to whether articles were kept for sale.
Admittedly, the sample was companylected by the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and had given the receipt.
Learned companynsel for the respondent State on the other hand supported the impugned order.
capacity, which were kept for sale.
It held that there was numberviolation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules as claimed.
The High Court numbered that if the articles were number kept for sale the question of selling it to the Food Inspector does number arise.
Referring to the evidence of PW 1, it numbered that PW 1 had introduced himself as Food Inspector and had expressed willingness to purchase 700 ml.
Appeal by appellant resulted only in reduction of sentence.
Four witnesses were examined and 21 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution and three documents were marked on the side of the defence.
After analysis, he obtained Ex.
Accordingly, he proceeded against the appellant.
of synthetic syrup Sarbath which was kept for sale.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 22.5.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., the Food Inspector, W.1 inspected the shop of the appellant by name Bejoy Fruits and Vegetables.
It was further submitted that there was numberenquiry made by the Food Inspector as to whether these articles were kept for sale.
P.12 report, which showed that the sample did number companyform to the standards prescribed under the rules and, therefore, was adulterated.
Stand before the High Court was that articles purchased by the Food Inspector PW 1 were number kept for sale and as such the same were number the food articles.
It found that the articles purchased were for human companysumable and were kept for sale and on analysis did number companyform to the requirement.
P.4 being the voucher for payment.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition which was filed questioning companyrectness of the companyviction for offence punishable under Section 16 1 a i read with Section 7 1 and Section 2 ia m of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in short the Act and also under Rule 5 read with Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in short the Rules .
The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ with default stipulation as recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kochi.
