VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a dealer in condiments in the town of Hardwar. THE Food Inspector, took samples of Ajwain from his shop in the prescribed manner on 31st December, 1977. One of bis samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who reported that the same contained 7.7% of organic matter as against the prescribed limit of 3%. He also found that it contained 3.2% of inorganic matter as against the prescribed limit of 2%. THE Food Inspector presented the matter for the sanction of the Public Health Authority. THE said authority purports to have sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. A notice under section 13 (2) of Prevention. of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' was served on the applicant on July 19, 1978. THE Munsif-Magistrate, before whom the complaint had been filed, took cognizance of the case on September 22, 1978 and issued notice against the applicant summoning him to answer the charge under section 7/16 of the Act. THEre is no dispute between the parties in so far as these facts are concerned.

(2.) THE trial Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence charged. He accordingly convicted him for the offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him R. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. THE usual default was super-added to the order recording conviction.

(3.) SO far as the first limb of the argument of the learned counsel is concerned, it may be stated that the applicant's own witness K. C. Srivastava who was the concerned Ahlemad in the court of the Munsif-Magistrate, before whom the case was pending, admitted in his cross-examination that he received the complaint from the Health Inspector on June 20, 1978 and signed the register of the said Inspector in token of the receipt of the complaint. This witness was not declared hostile and was not cross-examined by the applicant. His statement, is therefore, binding on the applicant. The two courts below were, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the complaint had been received in the court of the Magistrate concerned on June 20, 1978. The finding recorded by the said court on this point is a finding of fact which cannot be called in question in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.