RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-1-1983, passed by Sessions Judge,, Bahraich whereby he dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and maintained conviction and sentence, awarded by the Special Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 632 of 1981 in connection with an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 30-1-1981, the Food Inspector, Abdul Gaffar went to the shop of the revisionist, Ram Niwas situate at Kaiserganj at about 12.15 p.m. and purchased a sample of 'Ajwain' weighing 300 grams. He also issued a receipt of Rs. 2.40 to the Revisionist, who, however, refused to sign or accept the same. Similarly, the notice as per Ext. Ka-3 was also refused by the revisionist. He divided the sample in three parts and filled up each part in three bottles which were duly sealed and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst together with Form No. 7 on 30-1-1981 and there maining two bottles were sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. The Public Analyst reported on 9-3-1981 that there was an inorganic matter to the extent of 4.01% against the prescribed 2% while there was organic matter to the extent of 6.6% against the prescribed 3%. Thus the sample collected by the Food Inspector was found adulterated. The sanction for prosecution of the revisionist was accorded on 10-4-1981 and the complaint was filed on 13-4-1981 in the competent Court. The accused-revisionist was put on trial under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He denied the accusation against him and pleaded false implication. In support of the prosecution, Abdul Gaffar P.W. 1 and Ram Singh P.W. 2 were examined. The Court witness. Ram Saneehi was also examined. The accused-revisionist, however, did not produce any oral or documentary, evidence in his defence. The learned Magistrate after consideration of the material, placed before him, found the accused-revisionist guilty under Sections 7/16 of the said Act and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. One thousand and in default thereof to undergo three months more R.I. There was an appeal against this order of conviction and sentence by the accused but this appeal was also dismissed on 10-1-1983 by the learned Sessions Judge who maintained the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-revisionist by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate Court's judgment and order, this revision has been preferred by the accused Ram Niwas.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as also the learned A.G.A. and also gone through the material on record.