SABBAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) SO far as conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adultera­tion Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for not giving the sample whereby the applicant was held guilty for the viola­tion or the provisions of Section 16 (l)(c) and (l)(d) is concerned the evidence of P.W. 2 coupled with the evidence of D. W. 1 clinchess the issue in favour of the ap­plicant that neither he was carrying on the business of grocery nor he had any such shop. His defence that he was engaged in watch repairing work is borne out from the evidence available on record.

(3.) FROM the statement of the Food Inspector, it appears clearly that the ap­plicant had left the shop before food in­spector came there and the story of locking the shop may be a doubtful situation. If he was not the owner of the shop, it was not possible for him to give any sample to the Food Inspector. Why any one, who is not concerned with the business and does not own it, should take the responsibility upon him. The Food Inspector had admitted that he had made no enquiries regarding the owner of the shop either from other persons present there or from the local body. In the presence of these lacunas it is not proper for this Court to affirm the conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16of the Act or for the violation of Rules 50 of the said Act.