The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction of a grocery store owner for selling adulterated pulses, but commuted his six-month prison sentence to a Rs 500 fine, noting that the offense occurred nearly three decades ago.
Sentence Commuted to Fine
In an order issued on July 28, Justice V. Narasingh determined that converting the substantive prison sentence into a monetary fine would meet the ends of justice. The court directed the shop owner to deposit the Rs 500 fine with the trial court within two months. Failure to pay the fine within the designated period will result in three days of imprisonment.
High Court Arguments and Findings
Because no legal counsel appeared on behalf of the convict, the High Court appointed advocate P. S. Mohanty as amicus curiae to represent him. Mohanty argued that the trial court had misevaluated the evidence, but submitted that replacing the custodial sentence with a fine would serve justice. Public Prosecutor S. Panigrahi contended that no court intervention was necessary, as the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Narasingh concluded that the evidence had been properly evaluated by lower courts, finding no basis to set aside the conviction. However, taking into account that the incident occurred in 1997, the nature of the offense, and the arguments presented, the court accepted the suggestion to alter the sentence.
Inspection and Sample Testing
The case stems from an incident on December 6, 1997, at approximately 4:30 p.m., when the food inspector for Sundargarh district and a food peon inspected the merchant’s store. Following legal formalities, the inspector issued a notice and purchased 750 grams of masoor dal and 450 grams of cumin seeds for Rs 40.50.
The inspector divided the samples into three equal, sealed, and labeled portions in the store owner’s presence. Two sealed samples were sent to a public analyst, and the remaining sample was sent to the Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization in Sundargarh.
The public analyst reported that the cumin sample was untainted, but the masoor dal was adulterated with khesari dal. The shop owner challenged the result, but the adulteration was subsequently confirmed by the Central Food Laboratory in Mysuru.
Lower Court Convictions
On April 17, 2000, a trial court found the store owner guilty of storing and selling adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to six months of imprisonment alongside a Rs 1,000 fine. That judgment was later affirmed by the District and Sessions Court on September 25, 2002.
