HABIB Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .K. Kaul, J. This is a revision by Habib against his sentence and conviction to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs. 1000 or in default to undergo three months rigorous imprison­ment more.

(2.) BRIERLY stated, the prosecution story is that Food Inspector Shri B.N. Agnihotri (P.W. 1) found the present revisionist sell­ing milk on Sept. 16, 1978 at about 6.30 a.m. at Dudwa crossing. Suspecting the milk. to be adulterated, he took a sample of the milk to the tune of 660 mililitres. Re­levant documents namely notice (Ext. Ka-1) receipt of payment of price which was Re. 1 48 paise (Ext. Ka-2) were prepared. For­malin was added in the sample milk and this sample was divided into three parts and was put in three separate phials which were pro­perly stoppered and sealed, one of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst for Report. The report of the Public Analyst was that this milk contained 3.8 percent of milk fat and 7 percent of non-tatty solids. There-after the Food Inspector obtained sanction of the Chief Medical Office: (Ext. Ka-5) and filed a complaint, in the Court of the Magistrate who took cognizance over the same. The accused was asked to stand his trial under Section 7|16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The defence of the accused was complete denial.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist admitted before the that the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer in this case was not valid and proper or legal sanction and in that view of the matter the accused should be acquitted. He has not challeng­ed the findings arrived at by the two courts below on facts.