PREETAM CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred by Preetam Chand Jam against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1979, upholding the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded to him under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) On 30/10/1976 at about 10.00 A.M. Ram Prakash, Food Inspector, went to village Buragaon of district Lalitpur and inspected the shop of the applicant Preetam Chand Jam. He found the applicant selling ground-nut oil. Suspecting it to be adulterated, the Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 375 grammes of oil for test by the Public Analyst. He performed the formalities needed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder to be complied with for obtaining the sample and thereafter sent the same to the Public Analyst. On report of the Public Analyst, the ground put oil obtained from the shop of the applicant was found to be deficient being not in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Act and the Rules.

(3.) On 21/12/1976, the Food Inspector sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with a covering letter to the applicant stating that the report of the Public Analyst indicated that the ground nut oil of the applicant, the sample of which was taken on 30/10/1976 was adulterated. It was further mentioned in this letter that in case the applicant doubted the correctness of the report of the Public Analyst, he could send the second foil of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for examination and checking.