BALIRAM KASAUNDHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that a sample of Saunf was purchased by the Food Inspector on 13th Oct., 1977 from the shop of the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. On analysis the sample was found to contain 15.4 per cent inorganic extraneous matter 6.7 per cent organic extraneous matter and 13.2 per cent insect damaged Saunf which exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 5 per cent as provided in appendix A.05.11. On these allegations, 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 applicant fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision.