KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 2 years' R.L and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 by the trial court. In appeal his conviction and sentence has been maintained by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. Hence this revision.

(2.) According to the prosecution case a sample of laddoos was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant's shop on 11th Jan., 1976. It was duly sealed. One of the sample phials was given to the accused-applicant and two others were taken by the Food Inspector. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst inasmuch as it contained a prohibited coal-tar-dye namely metanil yellow. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also the counsel for the State. Learned counsel has argued that the sample which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst was not the sample which was taken by the Food Inspector. He stresses this argument on the ground that weight of the sample has decreased from 500 grams to 175 grams, and that his signatures which are alleged to have taken on the sample phial, are not there. The court below has considered this argument,It is clear that the sample of laddoos was taken from the accused on 11th Jan., 76. The case was registered in court on 16th Nov., 71. The accused put in appearance on 1st Aug., 78. About a year later on 27th July, 79, he filed an application praying that the second sample in the possession of the health authorities may be brought before the court. His objection was that the weight of laddoos in the sample phial was less than the weight of laddoos originally taken from him. The Sessions Judge has observed that after the period of 3 years, the lusciousness of the fresh sweet-meat disappears and it dries by and by and is therefore bound to lose weight. This observation of a natural phenomenon by the Sessions Judge is totally correct. I have no reason to disagree with him. As for the argument of the applicant's counsel that his signatures on this phial are not there, I find from a perusal of Ex. Ka 5 which is the report of the Public Analyst that it clearly mentions that the seal of the sample, which was sent to him for analysis and the seal in this particular case which have been separately despatched are identical. Therefore, the identity of the sample which was taken from the applicant and sent for analysis is clearly established from the certificate of the Public Analyst vide Report (Ex. Ka 5).