MUNAVVAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order of appellate court dated 08.02.2013 dismissing the appeal of the revisionist and confirming the order passed by trial court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, Court No.10, Faizabad sentencing the revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for six months' together with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the revisionist will have to undergo seven days' additional imprisonment. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the revision are that on 25.02.2010 at about 12:45 hours the revisionist was checked while he was carrying Khoya (Milk Product) on the bicycle inside a basket; that when the revisionist was confronted by the food Inspector he informed that he was carrying 20 kg. Khoya to Rudauli for selling; that when demanded the selling licence of the year 2009-2010, he could not produce the same; that the Food Inspector was suspicious that the Khoya was adulterated and he purchased 750 gram Khoya on payment of Rs.75 as sample and he completed formalities at the spot but none was prepared to witness the incident; that after observing due formalities, he prepared three samples in a small bottle of the material so seized and on each bottle of sample he affixed the slip duly signed by the City Magistrate, Faizabad, he obtained the signature of the seller on each small bottle and prepared the site plan at the spot; that one of the sample was sent to public analyst at Lucknow and rest of the samples he deposited as required under the rules; that the chemical analyst found that the sample was short of fat content of the prescribed minimum limit of 30% for Khoya, and therefore, the sample was found to be adulterated and hence after securing sanction he filed a complaint before the court concerned and the court after examining the record and after recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. framed charges against the revisionist under section 7/16 of the Act; that the revisionist denied the charges before the trial court and claimed to be tried; that P.W.-1 Kumar Chitrasen and P.W.-2 Krishna Kumar Yadav were examined under section 246 Cr.P.C. and after recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. the trial court was of the opinion that the sample was adulterated and accordingly convicted the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Act; that against that order the revisionist preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the appellate court vide its order dated 08.02.2013 overruled the pleas taken by the revisionist during appeal and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant revision has been preferred.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. at length and perused the record.