VISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1990 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No. 18/1988, Vishan Kumar vs. State of U P and another dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 23.5.1988 passed by Munsif Magistrate L.C.C. Pilibhit whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short 'PFA Act') and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.11.1980 at about 3.30 p.m. the Chief Food Inspector Bareilly went to the shop of the accused revisionist known as M/s Narayan Das Fakeer Chand and inspected the same. In that shop the speller of the oil was found installed. The edible oils were exhibited for sale at that shop. The Food Inspector asked about the oil contained in a container. The accused revisionist told the Food Inspector that it was linseed oil. On suspicion the sample of that oil amounting to 375 gm was purchased from the accused revisionist after payment and the purchase receipt was obtained from the accused revisionist. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow. On analysis the same was found to be adulterated. The analysis report is Ext. Ka.8. The second sample was sent to Public Analysis of Punjab Govt. Chandigarh. The report of that analysis is Ext.Ka.7. According to that report also the sample was found adulterated. After obtaining the sanction of Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit a complaint was filed by the aforesaid Food Inspector, on the basis of which a case was registered as case no.131A/1988 under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Lower Criminal Court, Pilibhit.

(3.) The trial court framed the charge under Section 7/16 PFA Act against the accused revisionist. The accused revisionist denied the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried.