RAKESH KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated 24.10.1972 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants. The said appeal was filed by them against the conviction under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly stated as 'the Act'), passed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate gave the benefit of Sec. 4 of the First Offenders' Probation Act to Rakesh Kumar, applicant No. 1, where as Ram Kumar, applicant No. 2, was sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default, to undergo further R.I. for four months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, briefly, is that on 6.11.1971 T.P. Pandey, Food Inspector, went to a shop in premises No. 104/16, Nala Road, Sisamau, police station Bazaria, Kanpur. He found Ram Kumar, applicant No. 2, sitting in the shop. He purchased 375 Grams of Deshi Ghee for sample on payment of Rs. 5.12. p. One of the sample bottles was, thereafter, sent to the public analyst, who sent the report to the effect that the sample was adulterated and was below the prescribed standard. After necessary formalities had been complied with, the applicants were challenged and prosecuted. To support its case, the prosecution produced the Food Inspector and other witnesses in whose presence the sample was obtained. The applicants pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The Magistrate, however, was of the opinion that the prosecution had established that the Ghee taken from the shop was adulterated, and that the applicants were liable to be convicted for the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act. It may be stated that according to the case of the prosecution, which was not denied by Rakesh Kumar, applicant No. 1 he was the owner of the shop, whereas Ram Kumar, applicant No. 2, was working as his salesman. Since Rakesh Kumar was aged about 11-12 years, the Magistrate gave the benefit of Sec. 4 of the First Offenders' Probation Act to him, but finding that Ram Kumar was guilty of the offence of having sold adulterated Ghee, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him for the term, mentioned above. Against their conviction and sentence, both the applicants preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge endorsed the findings given by the Magistrate and thus maintained the sentence awarded to them. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the applicants.