MAHESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 24th Nov., 1980 passed by Shri G. Chandra, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur who dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1980 and maintained the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Sec. 7/16 of the I Prevention of Food Adulteration Act under which the revisionist was sentence to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(2.) The revisionist was found selling cuminseed at his shop in Shiswa Bazar-on 25-12-76 at mid day by the then Food Inspector Shri Indrasan Chauhan. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served notice on the revisionist and purchased 450 gms. of cuminseed for Rs. 6.30; the sample wail divided into three equal portions one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for his report. The Public Analyst found the sample adulterated by 20.4% as organic extraneous matter was there. On receipt of this report the Food Inspector procured necessary sanction for prosecution and the revisionist I was sent up to stand his trial. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector Shri Indrasan Chauhan and Shri Mahendra Singh. The revisionist denied the aforesaid allegations. Mehendra Sharma was examined as P.W. 1. Vijay Bahadur Yadav, C.W.l was subsequently examined. The conviction and sentence were recorded by the trial Magistrate giving rise to appeal No. 79 oil 1980 which was dismissed. Then the revisionist carried the matter to this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On behalf of the revisionist it was pointed out that Vijay Bahadur Yadav C.W. 1 who testified about the sanction Ex Ka. 6 for prosecution accorded by the sanctioning authority was examined on 15.12.79. No question was formulated under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. about this testimony which was Ike most material piece of incriminating circumstance against the revisionist. The revisionist was not questioned about it. After the examination of C.W.1 lie statement of the revisionist purports to have been recorded on 11.4.80 on which the revisionist signed and he was asked about the statement of C.W.1. It bears the signatures of the revisionist but not of the trial Magistrate himself. So the contention was that the signatures of the revisionist were procured on a blank paper. The incriminating circumstance was not put to him tinder Sec. 313, Cr P.C. The revisionist has been materially prejudiced by this omission. Vide Harnam Singh Vs. State, AIR 1976 SC 2141. the learned counsel for the State also conceded that it is was a serious flaw. In this view of the matter, I find that the revisionist has been materially prejudiced by this omission.