SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ravendra Singh in support of this revision application and have also perused the record of the case. According to the prosecution case a sample of Boora was purchased by the Food Inspector from the sweetmeat shop of the accused-applicant on 8th July 1977 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample Phials, which was sent to the Public Analyst, disclosed that the total sugar as sucrose was less than the minimum prescribed standard of 96.5%. The deficiency was 2.4%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. It appears that during the trial the applicant challenged the report of the Public Analyst and prayed that the sample be sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The sample taken from the applicant was sent to the Director and his report disclosed that the total sucrose contained was 91.6%. Thus according to this report the deficiency is 4.9%. This report supersedes the report of the Public Analyst under the provisions of law. I have, therefore, to accept that the deficiency was 4.9%.

(3.) The applicant's counsel has challenged the merits of the case. He has submitted that the sample was not taken by the Food Inspector and that no independent witnesses have been produced in proof thereof. This is a pure finding of fact. Both the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, have held the taking of the sample from the applicant, fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact.