AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, Amar Nath, was convicted under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Jaunpur on 28-5-85 and was sentenced to six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order and judgment which was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge Jaunpur on 5-11-86. Aggrieved by the order he has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision mainly on two grounds ; firstly he has contended that after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the applicant moved the trial court to send second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. THE same was analysed and the report was sent. It is not disputed that according to both the reports, that of the Public Analyst and that of the Central Food Laboratory, the milk was found adulterated. What the 'learned counsel for the applicant contends is that the report of the Central Pood Laboratory shall supersede the report of the Public Analyst and the trial court ought to have proceeded to reframe the charges in accordance with the contents of the report of the Central Food Laboratory and the prosecution ought to have proved the said report and the contents of the said report ought to have been put to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 CrPC. THE argument appears to be attractive but it is too technical to be considsred for interference in revision. In the absence of this technical procedure that has not been adopted, I am of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant, who very much knew that milk, that was taken from him as a sample was found adulterated.