AKHILESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist Akhilesh Chandra was tried by the munsif Magistrate VI Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') vide Criminal Case No. 735 of 1983, State v. Akhilesh Chandra. Finding the prosecution case proved against the revisionist, he was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act for six months R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months further r. I. vide judgment and order dated 23. 2. 1984. Aggrieved by his conviction the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, which was transferred to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge for disposal as criminal appeal No. 48 of 1984. The appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and his conviction and sentenced recorded by the trial Court was affirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide his judgment and order dated 31. 1. 1985. Against the said conviction, the revisionist has filed the above noted revision in this Court, which was admitted on 29th August 1985. The revisionist was granted bail and the realization of fine awarded was also stayed.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the revisionist was that on 6. 11. 1982 the sample of the buffalo milk was taken by Food Inspector, Bashir Ahmad Khan at 7. 00 a. m. in Kayamganj while the revisionist was selling buffalo milk. He purchased 660 buffalo milk after paying Rs. 2 for the same. He divided the sample into three parts, added 18 drops of formlin of 40 per cent strength in each of the three phials. He also observed the procedure for preparation of form 6 (notice for taking of sample), Form 7 (impression of the seals ). He also got signature of the person whom he had taken the sample. He sent one phial of sample for analysis to the Public Analyst Vide Ex. Ka-5. The report of the public Analyst dated 21st February 1983 found the sample to be adulterated, as the same was deficient up to 50 per cent in milk fat and 7 per cent in non-fatty solids. This report is Ex. Ka 6. After obtaining sanction, vide Ex. Ka 8, from the Chief Medical Officer/local Health Authority, Farrukhabad dated 28th April 1983 he filed the complaint in the Court on the basis of which the revisionist accused was summoned and was tried and ultimately convicted as aforementioned. His appeal was also dismissed culminating in the present revision.

(3.) AT the time for hearing of the revision it was detected that the Trial Court record was not received in this Court even though the summoning of the trial court record was ordered by this Court. It was informed that the same was weeded out. Consequently, reconstruction of the record was ordered by this court. In pursuance of the said order, the reconstruction of the record was endeavoured and some papers were received from the office of C. M. O. vide his letter dated 9. 4. 1999 which included the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the copy of the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer/local Health authority dated 20. 4. 1983, the application of the Food Inspector for grant of sanction, the Public Analyst report dated 21. 2. 1983. Rest of the record of the case was not traced out and it was reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, farrukhabad vide his letter dated 16. 4. 1999 that it is not possible to reconstruct the record.