JAFROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 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 is to undergo further R.I. for three months, lie has also been convicted for the breach of R.I. 50 of the P.P. Rules and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.00. In default of payment of line lie is to undergo one month's R.I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Hence this revision.

(2.) According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant who was taking the same for sale in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phial, which was sent for analysis, the Public Analyst disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 5% and non-fatty solids by 17%. It was thus adulterated. 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 and scrutinised the record of the case. The main point which has been argued before me is that there has been breach of R.I. 13(2) of the P.F. Rules. The submission is that neither the report of the Public Analyst nor the intimation as required by Sec. 13(2) was sent to the applicant and, therefore, he has been severely prejudiced in the trial. In support of his contention, he has brought to my notice Exts. Ka 10 and Ka. 11. I have carefully scrutinised these documents.