RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by convict Ram Lal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.6.1983 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1983 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist by the lower court was maintained.

(2.) THE facts are few and simple. It was on 9.5.1981 at about 11 a.m. that in village Khasraul within the circle of police station Atrauli, District Hardoi, the Food Inspector S.D. Gupta purchased mixed milk of cow and she-buffalo from the revisionist for the purpose of analysis. After observing the necessary formalities, one of the three bottles in which the sample had been filled up, was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that there was deficiency of about 14% non-fatty solids in the sample. After obtaining the requisite sanction from the Chief Medical Officer. Complaint for the prosecution of the revisionist was lodged by the Food Inspector in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. THE trial took place in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sandila (Special Court of Economic Offences). Hardoi. THE learned Magistrate after consideration of the evidence adduced before him found the revisionist guilty under Section 7 (1) and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1000. feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, Ram Lal carried an appeal to the court of sessions. Hardoi. This gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1983. It was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge himself by means of the impugned judgment and order. Still dissatisfied, this revision has been preferred by the convict Ram Lal.

(3.) AS to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it was urged by the learned counsel that the infraction of Section 10 (7) took place in this manner that even though two witnesses were called by the Food Inspector but they refused to put in their signatures/thumb-mark on these memo prepared by the Food Inspector. The argument further proceeded that if they had refused to put in their signature/thumb-mark, they could be examined in court to affirm the same and their non-examination would go to indicate that in fact the Food Inspector had not called any person as required under Section 10(7). to be present at the time he had taken the sample from the revisionist.