SATYA NARAIN Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant was sentenced to six months' R.I. and Rs. 1500.00 fine by the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. An appeal was thereafter preferred which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The conviction was maintained. The appellate court found that the sentence of six months' R.I. was proper. However, the fine of Rs. 1500.00 was reduced to Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) In the present revision the learned counsel has firstly challenged that the sanction has been granted by the Chief Medical Officer without application of mind. I have myself perused the papers on the record. There are endorsements of Chief Medical Officer both on the report of the Public Analyst and Food Inspector which clearly shows that he granted the sanction after seeing them. From the aforesaid it is clear that the sanction has been accorded by the Chief Medical Officer after applying his mind to the relevant documents which were submitted to him. This contention has no force.

(3.) Secondly it was argued that the Food Inspector concerned had no jurisdiction to take the sample as he had not produced the written orders of the Chief Medical Officer permitting him to take the sample. The notification dated 27-2-1973 under which the powers of Food Inspectors under the Act had been conferred has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the Sessions Judge. The learned counsel has not been able to show me as to how the Food Inspector concerned in the present case will not derive powers under this notification. There is no provision in this notification that there has to be a written order of the Chief Medical Officer permitting the Food Inspector to take samples in any area. The Food Inspector in his testimony has also referred to the administrative orders given by his superiors. The contention raised by the learned counsel is without any substance as the Food Inspector concerned had jurisdiction to take the sample under the notification dated 27-12-1973. The learned counsel for the applicant next argued that from the receipt it was clear that the shop belonged to applicant's brother Hari Krishah and the Food Inspector pressed the applicant to sign the documents on behalf of his brother. The courts below on the appraisal of evidence have rightly held that the applicant was found selling mustard oil and was thus rightly prosecuted. I have myself perused the receipt and also the evidence and in my opinion the findings recorded by the two courts below on this question do not suffer from any illegality.