AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 07.03.1989 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1988 and against the judgment and order dated 07.03.1988 passed by A.C.J.M., Varanasi in Criminal Trial No. 143 of 1985 convicting the revisionist under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six month R.I. and imposing fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Sri Nand Kumar Singh, Food Inspector on 20.11.1983 at 11:00 A.M., went to the shop of the revisionist situated at Ram Raipur, Police Station Jansa, Varanasi and found that the revisionist was selling pulses, rice and mustered oil etc. without having any licence to sell them. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the revisionist and purchased 375 gm. of mustered oil for Rs. 8.25/- after giving him cash payment and giving the receipt to the revisionist. He prepared three samples of mustered oil in the presence of the revisionist and fixed the wrapper. Lable and code slip was pasted on them and they were sealed as per rules on the spot. The accused refused to sign on the documents. Other people present on the spot except Moti Lal, refused to sign the document or reveal the identity. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the analyst at Lucknow for examination who vide his report dated 07.01.1984 found Argemone oil and 6% Linseed oil in the sample. Thus, the sample being adulterated permission to prosecution was obtained from Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and complaint was filed on which the accused has been tried under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The accused appeared before the trial court and denied the charges levelled against him and on the application of the accused, the second bottle of sample of mustered oil was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata and in the report, Argemone oil was not found in the sample, infact castor oil was present in the sample and even according to Central Food Laboratory, the sample was found to be adulterated.