PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURYA Prasad, J. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1990 in toto arising out of judgment and order dated 23-4-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Orai convicting the revisionist under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. l. 000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that the Food Inspector Sri Chhutkan Verma found at 8. 00 a. m. on 14-10-1982 the revisionist Phool Singh carrying on a bicycle about 50 litres of buffalo milk in two containers and going towards the city of Orai district Jalaun for selling the same in the open market. Disclosing his identity and signifying his intention of sending the sample of milk for analysis. Food Inspector, Sri Chhutkan Verma purchased 660 milli litres buffalo milk in lieu of Rs. 2/- as price which was paid and receipt was obtained. THE Public Analyst on examination found that the milk was deficient in fat content by 10% and non-fatty solids by about 17%, THE stock was thus adulterated. THE Food Inspector obtained sanction for the prosecution of the accused-revisionist Phool Singh and thereafter filed a complaint against him in the court on 23-2-1983. THE Magistrate concerned summoned the accused revisionist and charged him under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE accused-revi sionist pleaded not guilty.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the statement of Food Inspector, Sri Chhutkan Verma, P. W. 1 to the effect that he had not filed the receipt on record showing that the sample and Form No. VII were sent to the Public Analyst by registered post and that he does not also recol lect the number of the receipt. It is on this basis that the learned counsel has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove how and when the samples, copy of memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet, were actually sent to the Public Analyst and therefore, the mandatory provisions of Rules 17 (a) and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with and the courts below committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused-revisionist. For this purpose he placed reliance upon State of Maharashtra-Appellant v. Raj Karan-Respondent, reported in 1988 EFR (SC) 550, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed: "counsel for the appellant does not dispute that it is mandatory to have the materials in Rules 17 and 18 separately sent to the public Analyst. "