BRAHMA DATT TEWARI Vs. STATE OF D P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 14.11.1994 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in criminal appeal No. 22 of 1983 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in criminal case No. 70 of 1982, whereby the revisionist -accused Bramha Datt Tewari was held guilty and sentence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adult ration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') to undergo six months R.I. and a fire of Rs. 2000/ -. In appeal the sentence of six months R.I. was up -held whereas the fine was reduced to Rs. 1000.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 26.7.1981 Food Inspector purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the revisionist after payment of its price and thereafter divided the same in three equal parts, one of which per rule was sent to Public Analyst. The sample was found adulterated, per report of the Public Analyst on account of presence of excess Oleic Acid. Sanction was accorded and complaint against the revisionist was filed by Food Inspector. In the trial before the learned Magistrate prosecution examined two Food Inspector M.S. Som (P.W.1) and clerk of the office of C.M.O. C.D. Bhatt (P.W.2). In defence Dev Pratap Singh (D.W.1) was examined to show that he had not witnessed the purchase and taking sample of mustard oil from -the revisionist, although he admitted his signature on notice Form No. VI (Ex. Ka.1) which was served on the revisionist by the Food Inspector (P.W.1) and on the receipt (Ex. Ka.2) also signed by the revisionist. The revisionist had denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Magistrate believed the evidence of prosecution and had convicted the revisionist as mentioned above, per judgment and order dated 15.1.1983, which was partly modified by the appellate judgment as stated above.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with the help of both of them.