BRIDHI CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Bridhi Chand against the judgment and order dated 9-9-1981 of Sri Khem Karan, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1981 by means of which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and the sentences awarded to the applicant under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinaiter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 5-3-1979 at about 4 P.M Mahabir Prasad Agarwal, Food Inspector, Deoria, found the applicant selling mustard oil and exposing it for sale in his shop. Suspecting the oil to be adulterated, he disclosed his identity and took a sample of this oil and paid its price This oil was sealed in three clean bottles and one of these, when sent to the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated because it had 32 per cent of linseed oil ( ka Tail) mixed with it. Sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) The first point raised was that Sec. 13(2) of the Act was breached ' This complaint was tiled on 14-5-1979. The statement of the Food Inspector is that on 17-5-1979 copy of the report of the Public Analyst along-5th the intimation was sent to the applicant. A copy of the intimation sent is on record and is dated 17-5-1979. The postal receipt also shows that it was on the 17th The month is not clear of the report; but the date 17th and he year 1979 are very clear. Register, in which the posting of this intimation was entered was not filed, but it could be called by the applicant therefore, it has not been shown that there was any breach of Sec. 13(2) of the Act.