RAM NAWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Ram Nawal who was tried in Sessions Trial No. 386 of 1976 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by his judgment and order dated 12-9-77 convicted the appellant under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, and in default to further undergo 2 months' R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that on 16-10-75 at about 10-55 A.M. appellant Ram Nawal was taking buffalo's milk for sale in Mohalla Azari Bagh in the city of Azamgarh. The Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh happened to meet the appellant and after introducing himself as the Food Inspector gave notice Ext. Ka-1 on Form No. 6 to the appellant for taking sample of milk for test and analysis by the Public Analyst. In token of the receipt of notice the Food Inspector obtained the thumb impression of the appellant. Thereafter the Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of she-buffalo milk from the appellant for 75 Paise in the presence of Hari Prasad (P.W. 2) and one Muneshwar Ram. The sample of milk was put in three separate phials which were duly sealed and labelled at the spot. One phial of the sample was handed to the appellant. A composite receipt (Ext. K.a-2) for having received 75 Paise and the sample phial was also obtained from the appellant. The Food Inspector sent one of the two phials in his possession to the Public Analyst who sent the report dated 4-12-75 (Ext. Ka-3) wherein in the opinion of the Public Analyst the she-buffalo milk was found to be adulterated After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh prepared the complaint on 27-1-76 and forwarded it to the District Health Officer for obtaining the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the appellant. After obtaining the sanction the complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who on the back of the complaint ordered on 9-2-76 : "Register. Summon the accused 4-3-76. Sd./Illegible C.J.M. 9-2-76. Accordingly, the appellant was prosecuted in the court of the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) Appellant pleaded not guilty and contended that his thumb impres-had been obtained by the Food Inspector by defrauding him by Tying that the thumb impression was being obtained for being a witness. Appellant also denied that any notice was served on him as Stated in the complaint Appellant also denied having received copy of the Public Analyst's report alleged to have been sent to him by registered post on 22-1-76 aid asserted that the Food Inspector wanted undue advantage from him' and the witnesses were falsely deposing against him.