RAMANJANEYULU Vs. K M MALLOJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the convicted accused person in C. C. No. 494 of 1976 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, wherein he was tried for an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having sold adulterated milk on 8-1-1975, The Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo S. J. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l.000/-, in default, to undergo S. I. for two months. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, accused went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge at Bellary in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1077. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 11-3-1977 confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, but set aside the order of sentence and remitted the case back to the learned Magistrate as the accused was not given an opportunity to submit on the aspect of sentence. The learned Magistrate after hearing the accused on the aspect of sentence levied the same sentence which he had passed earlier. Aggrieved by the said order, the convicted accused has come up in revision before this Court,

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner, raised two points before me submitting that the order of conviction passed by the Courts below was not legal and proper. He submitted that Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with by the Food Inspector in this case. The Food Inspector had not sent by a separate post the memorandum and sample seals to the public analyst. He pointed out that the Food Inspector had not taken one or more independent witnesses while purchasing the sample as contemplated under Section 10 (7) of the Act.

(3.) Adverting to the first point viz., that the Food Inspector did not send the sample seals and memorandum, the learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the evidence of P. W. 1. wherein he has stated : "another memorandum was sent by Registered Post to the public analyst." On looking into the records, it is seen, the memorandum contained the sample seals also. That being so, there is no substance in the said contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner,