SANTHOSE KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist Santosh Kumar was tried in Case No. 1055 of 1955, State v. Santosh Kumar by ACJM, Court No. 12, Jaunpur, under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P. S. Jafrabad, district jaunpur. The Trial Court finding the case of the prosecution to be correct, convicted the revisionist under Section 16 (1) (A)of PFA Act and sentenced him for three months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, vide its order dated 15. 4. 2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the revisionist preferred an appeal before the sessions Judge, Jaunpur, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2002 Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P. The aforesaid appeal was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court III, Jaunpur. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 6. 9. 2006 and confirmed the conviction and sentenced awarded by the Trial court. The revisionist thereafter has challenged both the orders in instant criminal revision, which was filed on 12. 9. 2006.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that Ram Autar Yadav, the Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the present revisionist, Santosh Kumar on 4. 6. 1995 at about 5 p. m. and he found that the revisionist was selling eatables without licence. The Food Inspector demanded the licence from the revisionist but he could not produce the same. The independent witnesses were called by the food Inspector but none of them became ready to be a witness. The Food inspector prepared the notice in duplicate and gave one copy to the revisionist and obtained his signatures. However, Shital Been (BHW) signed on the notice. The Food Inspector applied for sanction to the CMO and after obtaining the same he filed a complaint in the Court against the revisionist, who was summoned for committing an offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food adulteration Act and was charged with the said offence.

(3.) DURING the trial the Food Inspector was examined as PW1 and Harihar chaubey as PW 3. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. PW1 testified regarding the absence of licence for selling the eatable by the revisionist in his shop situated at Jafrabad, District Jaunpur. He also testified that CMO granted the sanction on 26. 6. 1995.