SHAH ALAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shah Alain has filed this revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi by which he dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment of the Magistrate 1st class, dated 26th Feb., 1973, convicting the applicant for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 28th November 1970 at 10.30 A.M. Sri Yasin Khan, Food Inspector found the applicant at Hanstale, selling adulterated milk. He gave him notice in form No. 6 and purchased the sample of milk for analyse is after paying him 66 p. In due course, the sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was sent for analysis and was found to be adulterated. Learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no evidence on the record to indicate that the accused was taking the milk for selling. In other words, he did not believe the prosecution case that the accused was selling milk when the sample was taken. It may be pointed here that according to prosecution's own case, the sample of milk was taken while the accused was seen carrying it in a can. None of the prosecution witnesses staled that he had seen the applicant actually selling the milk. They inferred that the milk was meant to be sold as the applicant also carried a measure along with the milk can. Be that as it may, the accused did sell milk to the Food Inspector for purposes of analysis and charged him a sum of 66 paise. The milk on analysis was found to be adulterated. Technically, an offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was, therefore, made out against him.

(3.) As on the evidence produced in the case an offence under Sec. 7/16 was made out against the accused, the revision application was admitted only for considering the question of sentence.