SARJOO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sarju Prasad was convicted under Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for contravention of Section 7 of that Act, for sale of adulterated milk and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. His appeal against that conviction was dismissed; and it is in these circumstances, that he has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE only point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is mandatory under the law to give sufficient details in the charge with regard to the manner in which an article of food is deficient or adulterated and if those particulars are omitted from the charge, the trial becomes invalid and conviction cannot follow on the basis oi such an invalid charge. In support of this contention of his, he has placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court. These are Ramesh Chandra v. State. (1970 All Cri Rule 144) and Girwar v. State, (1971 All Crl. . Rule 219 ). In both these cases. K. B. Asthana J, held that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to describe in "the charge the ingredient of the offence to enable the accused to know the case against him. He further observed thus:

(3.) IN the circumstances, this revision has no substance and is dismissed. The petitioner is on bail and shall surrender to the same. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow shall issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant, and in the event of his surrender or arrest, as the case may be. he shall be remanded to jail custody to serve out the sentence.