SHAMSUDDIN (IN JAIL) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1999, passed by the 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1998, Shamsuddin v. State dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 17.8.1998 convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1990, State v. Shamsuddin to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the accused revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has argued before me that the accused moved an application for further examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory by exercising his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and this application was rejected by the learned Magistrate without any sufficient reason and his valuable right has been affected. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I find that both the courts below have recorded a finding that there is sufficient compliance of the provision under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.