RAM PRIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.1987 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1985 dismissing appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.02.1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in Case No. 1080 of 1984 holding accused guilty under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, convicting and sentencing the revisionist to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- coupled with defaulting clause.

(2.) Brief facts are that the revisionist Ram Preet was buffalo milk vendor of Kasba Rudrapur, District Deoria. Raghubansh Pande was the Food Inspector of Rudrapur area. on 30.12.1982 at 11:00 A.M., the revisionist was exposing for sale buffalo milk in Rudrapur Kasba. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity with the revisionist and demanded licence for selling buffalo milk. The revisionist did not have any licence, so, he was unable to produce it. Thus, the Food Inspector served notice in form no. 6 on the revisionist and purchased 660 ml. buffalo milk for Rs. 1.65/- in presence of witnesses Baiju and Mohd. Faruq and obtained receipt of payment of price of the buffalo milk. The collected buffalo milk was divided into three parts. The Food Inspector mixed formalin in each phials as preservative. The milk was sealed in three clean phials on which necessary endorsements were made and thumb impression of the revisionist was procured. The Food Inspector prepared six copies of memorandum, sent sample along with the copy of the memorandum and specimen seal to the Public Analyst for analysis according to the rule and deposited remaining two phials of the sample in the local health office. On 15.02.1985, the report of the Public Analyst was received and it was found that buffalo milk was adulterated. Non fatty solids were deficient by 26%. The Food Inspector requested the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria for launching prosecution against the revisionist. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, a complaint petition was lodged against the revisionist.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the complaint petition, the revisionist claimed trial.