AZAM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In the event of default in payment of fine, he is to undergo further 1# months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Rampur. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders and the record of the case. A sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 25th Dec., 76. It is the case of the prosecution that the milk was mixed Cow and Buffalo milk in the proportion of 1-8. The milk was divided in three portions in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 34 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 28 per cent judged from the standard of 1-8. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) 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 conclusively established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by them. Applicant's counsel has argued that there has been no compliance of Sec. 13(2) of the Act. This point has also been dealt with by the Sessions Judge. I am in agreement with the reasons given by him. The applicant has himself admitted in his statement the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. There is no denial by him that the intimation was not sent to him, as such I do not find any force in this submission.