THAKUR PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. M. Gupta, J. This appeal has been filed by one Thakur Prasad against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 7th February 1976 Sri Niroti Lal Food Inspector, Circle Mirzapur, district Azamgarh purchased 375 grams of mustard oil after paying its price, Rs. 2. 25, at the rate of Rs. 6. 00 per Kg. to the appellant, whose shop is situate in Lahidih Bazar. Before purchasing the sample the usual notice under rule 12 in Form no 6 was given. The sample was divided into three separate parts and one of those sealed phials was handed over to the appellant; one of them was sent to the public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the District Medical Officer of Health. The public Analyst in his report dated 20ih March, 1976 reported that the sample of mustard oil sent to him contained 7. 87% of linseed oil. The sample was thus adulterated in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and its Rules. The report of the Public Analyst was dispatched by registered post to the appellant on 17th April, 1976. Thereafter it appears that on the report of the Food Inspector to the District Medical Officer of Health sanction was accorded for the prosecution of the appellant on 30th March, 1976. A complaint was then filed. On 25-6-1976 the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge held that the provisions of Rule 9 (j) and the provisions of Section 13 (2) to the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Act were not complied with. However, in his view these provisions were not mandatory. He convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.