DINESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1999 affirming the judgment and order dated 28.8.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 454 of 1996, where under the revisionist has been held guilty under Sec. 7(1)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to under go R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default he has been further sentenced as provided in the judgment.

(2.) I have heard Shri R.B. Sahai, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the Respondent on this revision and perused the record.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that there is no compliance of Sec. 10(7) of the Act and Rules 17 and 18 of P.F.A. Rules. It is further contended that the trial court first of all has started to try the case through summary procedure on 27.2.1997 but suddenly on 20.8.1998 the Magistrate adopted the procedure of warrant trial without giving any opportunity to parties, hence illegality was committed. No compliance has been made under Sec. 11(2) as both copies of Form No. VII were not sent along with the sample. Nothing has been mentioned in the report of public analyst that any formalin was mixed and no compliance under Sec. 13(2) of the Act has been made as P.W. 2 Parvej Ahmad has not proved the handwriting of Mohd. Ismail.