CHHATRAPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine he has been awarded six months' R.I. further. In appeal his conviction and sentence have been maintained by the Sessions Judge Moradabad. Hence this revision.

(2.) According to the prosecution case a sample of buffalo milk, which the applicant was carrying in two drums, on 3rd July, 1977 at 10 A.M. was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed bylaw. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. His report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents to the extent of 62% and in non-fatty solids to the extent of 20%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. Learned counsel has assailed the sanction. His submission is that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind. From a perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge I find that he has observed therein that all the relevant documents in connection with the sanction were seen by the Sanctioning Authority and the word 'Seen' has been written on them. No affidavit has been filed in this Court to doubt the observations made by the Sessions Judge. I, therefore, have to take the statement of fact as correct. In this view of the matter it is futile to contend that the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind.