RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent-State.

(2.) This revision, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has arisen from the judgment of IInd Munsif/Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Etawah, dated 08.12.1988, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1954") and sentencing him three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default in payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment has also to be served by revisionist. Against the aforesaid judgment the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 1989, which has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court, i.e., Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah vide judgment dated 24.06.1989.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised two contentions before this Court. First, that there is no compliance of Section 10(7) of Act, 1954, as no independent witness has signed the sample taken by Food Inspector and, therefore, the entire prosecution is vitiated. Secondly, it is said that there is no compliance of Section 13(2), inasmuch as the test report of Public Analyst was sent to revisionist after prosecution commenced and his request for re-testing has illegally been rejected by Trial Court.