CHUNNO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against order dated 22-7-1986 passed by the Ses sions Judge, Banda whereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 17-3-1986.

(2.) THE revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act for being found selling adulterated buffalo milk. THE Public Analyst found that there was deficiency of 37% fatly solid and 37% of non-fatty solids. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the accused denied that he carried on business of selling milk and also denied that any sample was taken or any milk was purchased from him.

(3.) THERE is nothing in the section that the said sample shall be sent on deposit of the expenses by the accused. No such rule was brought to my notice by the learned A. G. A. also. The application of the ac cused, therefore, could not be rejected on the ground that the expenses were not deposited by the accused. The learned Ses sions Judge has also not mentioned any section, rule or provision under which the accused was required to deposit the expen ses for sending the sample for re-analysis. The fact that a prayer was made by the revisionist for re-analysis and the said ap plication was rejected without any jus tified reason and ground, it is clear that the accused was denied a right which was vested in him and thus illegality was com mitted and, therefore, the conviction can not stand.