ASHARFI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Asharfi, the accused revisionist, has filed this revision to seek annulment of the judgment and the order of Shri M.P. Singh, VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 3-11-81 in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1981 dismissing the same and thereby confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against him by Shri Jai Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 13 of 1980 under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 2, 000.00 or in default of payment thereof six months further RI.

(2.) On 13-12-78, Food Inspector Shri.K.P. Misra, (PW 1) visited the shop of the applicant at 3.30 p.m. where he runs the business of selling edible and mustard oils. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the applicant and in the presence of Surendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW 2) took sample of Alsi oil 450 ml. against the payment of Rs. 3.15 through the receipt which was thumb marked by the applicant and signed by the said witness Surendra Kumar Jaiswal. Notice in form No. 6 also handed over to the applicant. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed and labelled in three clean phials one of which was handed over to the applicant. The other sealed phial was sent to the Public Analyst of the Government of U.P. Lucknow who submitted his report dated 22-1-1979. He opined that the sample contained butter yellow prohibited coaltar dye. Thereafter the Food Inspector (PW 1) obtained sanction from Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, for prosecuting the applicant. In pursuance thereof the prosecution was launched against the applicant.

(3.) In support of the prosecution case the statements of Shri K.P. Misra (PW 1), Food Inspector, and Surendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW 2) were recorded. The accused applicant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. He examined Ram Briksh DW 1 in defence. On the appreciation of the evidence the accused-applicant was convicted and sentenced as above by the learned Judicial Magistrate and his appeal was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision.