ANWAR ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Saxena, J. This revision application is directed against the judg ment and order dated 17-12-1992, passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, learned Sessions Judge Bijnor, in Criminal Appeal No, 20 of 1992, Anwar Ah v. State of U. P. and others, whereby the appeal was dismissed by him and the judgment and order dated 23-4-92 passed by Sri Hukum Singh, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, in Criminal Case No. 758/90 was confirmed. The learned A. C. J. M, had convicted the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigo rous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE revisionist had got a grocery shop, besides other items he used to sell packets of turmeric (Haldi Powder) purchased as such by the manufac turer thereof who too was prosecuted but acquitted of the charges levelled against him. THE revisionist had not obtained warranty from the manufacturers of the packets and therefore, his contention that he was not responsible for adulteration had not found favour with the courts below. THE Food Inspector had purchased six packets of turmeric powder, each weighing 100 grams, for Rs. 12/ -. Necessary formalities were completed by him at the spot. THE sample was sent to Public Analyst along with a copy of memorandum in Form No. 7. THE Public Analyst after analysing the sample of turmeric powder sent a report (Ext. Ka-4), which revealed that the sample was found to have been coloured with coaltar dye and contained prohibited oil and water colours and thus was adulterated. After obtaining the sanction from the Chief Medical Officer for prosecution of the appellant, the Food Inspector had filed the complaint in the competent court. THE revisionist had denied that the samples were taken from his shop by the Food Inspector and had stated that he had been falsely implicated. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar was the manufacturer of the turmeric powder.

(3.) THE revision application, therefore, was liable to be dismissed.