RAM KREET Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Ram Kreet has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case was Chat the food inspector had taken a sample of buffalo milk from the applicant on 13-10-1977 at about 12 noon and on analysis this milk was found adulterated, the fat contents being found to be barely 4% and non-fat solid contents 7.2% which is as against the prescribed 6% and 9% respectively. THE applicant's case was of false implication because he failed to comply with the food inspector's demand of Ghee and curd in connection with a marriage. Both the courts below found the prosecution case proved and convicted the applicant.

(3.) ANOTHER ground on which the sanction was attacked was that the date is found only under the signatures of the sanctioning authority and not at the top in the column for date which is blank. This I think is a minor omission. The sanctioning authority may very well have thought that after placing the date under its signatures in its own hand it is not accessary to fill to top column. In any case no inference can follow from this negligible omission. I would, therefore, hold that the sanction is perfectly in order. There are no extenuating circumstances in this case nor can this be regarded as a fit case for release on probation even if the U. P. First Offenders Release on Probation Act be held applicable. The minimum sentence awarded must therefore, be held to be proper.