AJODHYA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 30.11.1979 sample of Lahi Ka Teil was purchased from the premises of the applicant by the Gove;rnment Food Inspector. ON analysis it was found to be contained Tisi oil to the extent of 75% and therefore, adulterated. The prosecution was launched. The applicant was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in the event of default in payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for nine months under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act." This judgment and order of February 11, 1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Hamirpur was challenged in criminal appeal No. 18/82, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.

(2.) IT is that order of June 30, 1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the legality whereof has been challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) SECOND submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to him at all he could not get the second part of the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta as against the report of the Public Analyst. This argument also does not find favour with me in view of the fact that according to the register of the department vide entry dated 17.1.1981, the report was put in the course of registered postal transmission to the address of the applicant which is certainly due compliance of the rules.