RAM DHANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the convict is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.3.1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1982 by V. Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda whereby he affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded against the revisionist by the VII Additional Munsif- Magistrate, Gonda in connection with offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that on 12.9.1989 at about 2 p.m., the Food Inspector, Abdul Rauf Siddique purchased from the revisionist 1500 gram, Laddoo for analysis by the Public Analyst. After observing the formalities required by law, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 15.10.1980 that the sample was coloured with 'Metanil Yellow', a prohibited coal-tar (Dye). After obtaining the requisite sanction from the Local Health Authority, a complaint against the revisionist was instituted by the Food Inspector in the competent court. The learned Magistrate after going through the evidence adduced before him, found the revisionist guilty for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default to undergo three months' more R.I. An appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gonda. This gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1982. It was heard and dismissed on 22.3.1983 by V Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda. Still aggrieved, the convict preferred this revision.

(3.) IT has further been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the report of the Public Analyst does not indicate the quantity of adulteration nor does it go to indicate what test, if any, was conducted by the Public Analyst to reach the conclusion. In this behalf, the learned counsel also contended that the Public Analyst ought to have furnished the data and the technical process by which the presence of the dye was identified. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the case reported in AIR 1958 Allahabad 34, State v. Sahati Ram and 1968 Criminal Law Journal 746, Manka Hari v. State of Gujarat.