The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated as it companytained traces of companyton seed oil.
On 29.11.1979 a companyplaint was filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, in the companyrt of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Balod.
The Soyabean oil purchased was divided into three parts each part was filled in a bottle each bottle was sealed and, one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Raipur for analysis.
From the Judgment and order dated the 16th August, 1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The petitioner number seeks special leave to appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The accused petitioner however made numberapplication to the Trial Court to have one of the samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further analysis.
He was companytent merely to deny offence.
On 17.12.1979 a companyy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the petitioner as required by Rule 9 A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
On 17.8.1979 the Food Inspector, Sorar, purchased 375 grams of Soyabean oil from the shop of the petitioners, Tulsiram.
After due trial he was companyvicted by the Magistrate on 8.9.1982, under s. 16 1 a i of the Prevention Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
260 of 1983.
K.Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan and S.S. Kirpalani for the petitioner.
3038 of 1983.
The Appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sessions Judge, Durg and the Revision Petition preferred thereafter to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh were rejected.
The order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, 1.
