LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-43

RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On November 23, 2000
RAJESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel of the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) This revision arises, from an order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate. Hapur, Sri R.A. Kaushik, in Crl. Case No. 1073 of 1985 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and an imposition of sentence of six months and of fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The judgment and order dated 5-8-1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Sri N. C. Jain, in Crl. Appeal No. 8 of 1986 in afirmation of the above mentioned conviction and sentence both have been challenged in this revision by the applicant.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, P.C. Gautam took a sample of Asafoetida (Heeng), 30 gms. from the applicant, on payment of Rs. 9.00 as its price. The inspector after completion of all the formalities, i.e. preparation of Form VI, sealing of the sample, signatures of the applicant over the slips pasted on the seal etc. sent one of the sample phial ot Public Analyst for its analysis. The Public Analyst's report indicated the sample to be not adulterated. Suspecting the report of the Public Analyst of the local area to which the applicant belonged, the Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as CMO) had sent the second sample phial, kept by him, to the Public Analyst. Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The above Public Analysts reported that the sample, so sent did not conform to the standard prescribed under the rules. It futher stated that the sample contained 27 pieces of hair and , therefore, the ultimate result of his analysis was that the sample is not fit for human consumption and is sub-standard. Receiving this report against the applicant after complying with the formalities to be adhered to under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act the prosecution was launched in a Court of law, as stated above. That prosecution, after evidence was analysed by the Court, resulted into conviction of the applicant as stated above.