PRATAP CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Orai dated 11th December, 1980 under which he dismissed the appeal of the applicant preferred against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of six months' RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - imposed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

(2.) IT appears that Sri B. L. Dohre Chief Food Inspector had visited the shop of the applicant on 29th November, 1976 and had found him selling among other things Lobia. He informed him that he was a Food Inspector and wanted to take the sample of Lobia for getting it analysed by the Public Analyst. He gave him requisite notice and purchased from the applicant 750 gms. of Lobia and paid him its price. Its receipt was duly given. The sample was divided into three separate parts and sealed in separate bottles. After levelling the bottles one of them was sent to the Public Analyst, the other was handed over to the applicant and the third was retained in the office of the Medical Officer of Health. The sample that was sent to the Public Analyst was analysed by him. His report dated 12th day of January 1977 shows that the sample contained 98.9% of Lobia and 1.1% of inorganic extraneous matter and there were four pieces of rodent excreta in 250 gms. of sample. He found the insect damaged quantity 42.1% and uric acid 38.6 mg. per 100 gms. Thus the rodent excreta exceeded the prescribed quantity of 5 pieces per kg. and uric acid also exceeded against the prescribed limit of 10 mg. per 100 gms. The Public Analyst, however, has not mentioned that the sample in question was adulterated. But from his report the inference can be drawn that the sample in question was adulterated. This report of the Public Analyst is dated 12th January 1977. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst sanction of the Medical Officer of Health was duly obtained and the complaint was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The defence of the applicant was a denial of the fact that any sample was purchased from him or that he was selling Lobia.

(3.) THE trial court as well as the appellate court accepted the prosecution version and rejected the defence version. The applicant was accordingly convicted by the trial court and his conviction was upheld by the appellate court.