SALEEM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the accused revisionist Saleem, who was tried by Special Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences) in complaint case No. 1854 of 1982, State Vs. Saleem, for offence u/s 7/16 P.F.A. Act, P.S. Gangoh, District Saharanpur and was convicted and sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 16.11.1984. Convicted revisionist accused abortively challenged his aforesaid conviction and sentence before lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 1984, Saleem Vs. State of U.P. as 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.1987 dismissed his appeal confirming conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Magistrate. This criminal revision emanates from the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.

(2.) Stated concisely in an abridged form while eschewing unnecessarily facts, charge against the accused is that on 18.9.1981 at 9.30 A.M., he was found selling buffalo milk at Titorah bus stand, P.S. Gangoh without having any license for selling milk. The milks 20 liters were in two cans hanged on a cycle. Food Inspector T.S. Lingwal P.W.1, after introducing himself and informing the revisionist of his intention to purchase the sample of buffalo milk for analysis and after giving notice in Form-VI purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk after paying it's price Rs. 1.95 paise. Inspection report, notice in Form VI, and purchase receipt were prepared simultaneously, which are proved as Exts. Ka1,2, &3 and revisionist and witnesses signed/put thumb impressions on the said documents. The purchased milk was churned and then was divided into three parts and was filled in three separate dry, neat and clean bottles and 18 drops of 40% formalin as preservative were added into each of the three bottles and all the three of it were sealed with thumb impression of the revisionist and thereafter putting them in an envelop seal impressions and code slips were pasted on each one of them accused revisionist was made to sign on it. After preparing memorandum in Form VII Ext. Ka-4, for analysis, one of the sample was dispatched to Public Analyst,Lucknow for testing. Memorandum was sent separately. Rest of the two samples along with memorandums were deposited in CMO'S office. Since the dispatched sample bottle to PA, Lucknow got damaged in transit, therefore second sample was dispatched for testing to PA. Public Analyst Report No. 2517 dated 19.2.1982, ext. Ka-6, disclosed shortage of 13% of fat and 17% non fatty solid in the sample and hence the same was found adulterated as not conforming to the prescribed standard.

(3.) In pursuance of the Government Notification dated 6001-722/55 dated 18.9.1976, which was published in Government gazette dated 13.11.1976, sanction for prosecution of the accused revisionist u/s 20 of PFA Act was applied by the Food Inspector on 4.5.82, vide Ext. Ka-7 before CMO Saharanpur, which was accorded on 15.5.82 vide Ext. Ka-8. Food Inspector thereafter filed complaint under section 7(1)(ii) read with Rule 50 of the P.F.A. Act read with section 16(a)(1)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act on 14.7.82 vide Ext. Ka-9, in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate(Economic Offences), Saharanpur. Notice for retesting of sample u/s 13(2) PFA Act was dispatched to the accused revisionist on 14.7.82 itself by the office of CMO , Saharanpur vide Ext Ka-10 along with PA report Ext. Ka-11.