PHOOLCHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Phool Chand against the judgment and order dated 2-6-81 by Sri A.S. Tripathi, IIIrd Additional Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1980 which was dismissed and the conviction recorded against the applicant under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintained.

(2.) Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that on JO-12-76 at about 2-30 P.M. the Food Inspector Udai Bhan Tewari went to the market of village Suraila, P.S. Karaket of district Jaunpur and took 375 grams of mustard oil from the applicant as sample. This was divided into three parts and sealed in three clean and dry bottles. One of them was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it to be adulterated. Therefore, necessary sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur was obtained and the applicant was prosecuted, resulting in his conviction, as aforesaid.

(3.) Two points were raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in ; this revision. Firstly, it was urged that the sanction given by the Chief Medical Officer for prosecution of the applicant was not proper and this sanction was ; given without any application of mind by him. The second ground urged was j that the controversy in this case, namely, that the mustard oil was adulterated j or not was not discussed at all in the judgments of the two lower courts and, therefore, these were not judgments in law and should be set aside.