RAM NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th April 1981, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pilibhit affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) On 29th December, 1977, sample of turmeric was taken from the applicant's shop. Formalities as prescribed under the law were duty complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the public Analyst who reported that the sample was adulterated being coloured with lead cheromate the use of which was prohibited in colouring turmeric. A complaint was thereafter filed for the prosecution of the applicant. The de-Janice set up by the applicant was a total denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was mad out against the applicant and, in the result, the High Court convicted him of the same and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved against it the applicant filed an appeal. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, dismissed it vide his judgment and order dated 20th April, 1981'. Dissatisfied with it the applicant has preferred this revision.

(3.) The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant before me was that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the applicant in this case inasmuch as the sanction was accorded in a machanical manner without any application of mind.