GOPI CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00by the Munsif Magistrate, Deoria. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria vide his order dated 18th Dec., 79. Hence this revision.

(2.) Very briefly stated the prosecution case is that a sample of linseed oil was purchased by the Food Inspector Jagat Pal Singh from the applicant on 11th Dec., 76, on suspicion it was adulterated. The sample was filled in three separate phials and duly sealed in accordance with law. One phial was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and two phials were deposited in the Health Office. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was adulterated. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted, as above. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has argued three points. First submission is that the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to him by the Health Officer but by the Food Inspector. This argument does not carry any weight. The statement of the Food Inspector is clearly to the effect that two sample phials were deposited by him in the Health Office. Obviously if the sample was sent by the Food Inspector, it implies that it was sent through the Health Office where they were in deposit. In any case this technicality will not carry the applicant very far, because there is nothing to indicate that any prejudice has been caused to him, as a result of the report being sent by the Food Inspector through the Health Office.