DIGVIJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1,500.00. In was ordered that in default of payment of fine, the applicant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) The prosecution story was that the Food Inspector Sri Ram Prakash purchased from the applicant on the 16th Aug., 1978 a sample of mustard oil and on analysis of the sample collected it was found that it was tissi oil and not mustard oil and that prohibited coal tar-dye was mixed in it. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence as believable and convicted and sentenced the applicant as already stated. On appeal preferred by the applicant, the court below has found that there was no violation of Sec. 13(2) or of Sec. 20 of the Act. The contention that there had been a breach of Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act was also repelled on a consideration of the evidence on record. It was submitted before the court below that there was no proper compliance of the provision of Sec. 10(7) of the Act. This contention also failed. It appears to have been contended before the court below that the applicant was not selling the mustard oil for consumption. The submission was, for sound reasons, unacceptable by the appellate court.

(3.) I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below and in my opinion the findings recorded against the applicant on an appraisal of the evidence led call for no interference in exercise of revisional power of this court.