SHIV PRASHAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the convict is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.1983, rendered by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1983.

(2.) THE relevant facts lie in a short compass. On 30.7.1980 at about 1 p.m., the Food Inspector, Rajendra Prasad Srivastava purchased 1, 1/2 kg. 'Bundi Ka Laddu' from the shop of the revisionist for analysis by the public Analyst. After observing the requisite formalities, a sample of the same was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 27.8.1980 that it was coloured with 'Metanil Yellow' which was prohibited. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Local Health Authority, a complaint was instituted against the revisionist in the competent court where he was charged under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). THE learned Magistrate after trial found the revisionist guilty and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo three months' more R.I. THEre was an appeal against this order of conviction and sentence but it also met with failure. Hence this revision.

(3.) IT was faintly contended that there was non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. However, this aspect of the case has already been carefully analysed by the lower appellate court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the revisionist had precious little to dislodge the finding reached by the lower appellate court on this score. Moreover, the revisionist did not exercise his right of getting the sample re-analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and therefore too, it cannot be legitimately contended that any prejudice has been caused to him on this score. Accordingly the second contention, urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist, has also little substance.