RAJ BAHADUR SHUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by convict is directed against the order dated 1.12.1983. rendered by Sri P. C. Mathur Vth Additional Sessions Judge. Hardoi, whereby he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1983 and affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Sandila in connection with an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) BRIEFLY speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that on 31.5.1981, the Food Inspector. G.P. Saxena, P.W. 1, while he was going to obtain samples from milk vendors on Sandi road found the revisionist carrying about 55 Kg. milk in four containers for sale, towards Sandi. The Food Inspector purchased 660 Ml. buffalo milk on payment of price thereof, in the presence of Balram and Siya Ram. He divided the milk in three equal parts and after adding formalin of requisite strength, he filled up the milk in three dry and clean bottles and observed the formalities, required by law. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported on 7.7.1981 that the sample was deficient in fat and non-fatty solids by 17% and 23% respectively. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from C.M.O., Hardoi, the Food Inspector instituted complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi on 18.2.1962 for prosecution of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. The intimation together with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the revisionist on 2.3.1982. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence, adduced before him, found the revisionist guilty under Section 7 (1) and sentenced him under Section 16 (1) (a) to undergo six months R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 1000. in default, to undergo two months' R.I. Dissatisfied with this order of conviction and sentence, an appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hardoi. This gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1983. It was heard and dismissed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, by means of the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal. convict Raj Bahadur preferred this revision.

(3.) SO far as the first point raised on behalf of the revisionist is concerned, we have the oral evidence of Ibadullah P.W. 2 to show that the copy of the Public Analyst's report was sent together with the; memo of intimation Ex. Ka-10 to the revisionist by registered post on 2.3.1982. The presumption under law is that the revisionist must have received this intimation together with the copy of the report of Public Analyst. During his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C, the revisionist has not denied the receipt of such intimation and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. Even otherwise, his self-same denial, if any, would be of no help to him in the absence of positive material on record to show that the Public Analyst's report was not sent to him at all. Both the lower Courts have recorded a finding of fact on this score and I do not find any compelling reason to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the first point, raised on behalf of the revisionist, carries little force and is not sustainable.