HNEEF MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal . Procedure, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 2-3-1994 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1989 by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur confirming the judgment dated 22-12-1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 53/ 88 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora (Bilaspur) convicting the appellant under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 mqnths and pay fine of Rs. 2,000 in dafault of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20-9-1.987, PW-1, R.C. Yadav. a Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused and after giving him notice, purchased sample of Arhar Pulses (Rahar Dal). The sample was divided in proper parts. It was packed and sealed and later on, a part of sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The sample was drawn on 20-9-1987. It was sent to the Public Analyst on 21-9-1987. It was received by the Public Analyst on 25-9-1987. The Public Analyst, by its report Ex.P-11 dated 10-11-1987, certified that the sample was adulterated as it contained prohibited synthetic colour. The report was received by the Deputy Director (Health) on 11-12-1987. The Food Inspector, in his turn, received for prosecution, Ex. P-12 was given. A notice was issued to the accused informing him that the case was fixed in the Court on 9-3-1988. The accused appeared before the trial Court on 25-1 -1988. His bail bonds were taken and he was required to appear in the Court on 9-3-1988. As he denied commission of the offence, he was put to trial. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held in favour of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused as referred above. As the appeal proved infructuous, the appellant has come to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other side, submits that the arguments of the appellant arc misconceived and the two Courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused.