CHANDRIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Basti, hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. It appears that a sample of cows milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant at 12.10 P M. on 23rd July, 1976 in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. One of the sample phials, thus taken, was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst which disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 41 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below have on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case held the guilt of the accused fully established.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has argued that the sanction (Ex. Ka.11) given in this particular case was not validly given. In other did not apply his mind before granting the sanction. I have carefully perused the impugned order. A number of circumstances have been given by the Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the sanction was in accordance with law. There can be no doubt from a perusal thereof that the relevant papers with regard to the sanction were sent by the Food Inspector to the sanctioning authority for the purpose of obtaining sanction. It has been mentioned by the Sessions Judge that even though the Food Inspector was in the dock and was fully cross-examined, yet not a single question was put to him challenging the assertion that the documents referred to by the sanctioning authority had not been sent to him at all.