RADHEY SHAYAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-96 passed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1994 of the same District, whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the accused. That appeal arose out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Saharanpur Dated 4-8-94 in Criminal Case No. 1151 of 1995. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty on a charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to two years R.I.and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00. On failure to pay the fine, further one month's S.I.was awarded.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned special judicial Magistrate dated 4-8-94, the revisionist preferred a criminal appeal as aforesaid, which was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge on 22-8-96. Hence this revision. 2.1 The facts are that on 23-12-85 at about 3.15 p.m., the food Inspector Sri C.B.Naithani purchased 600 gms. of Bura on payment of Rs. 3.00 from the accused (Revisionist) for the purpose of sending the same to the public analyst for analysis. Necessary formalities were done on the spot and the sample was sent to the public analyst accordingly, whose report dated 3-2-86 was received, according to which quantity of ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid was found more than the maximum prescribed limit of 5 per centage and the percentage of Sugar, expressed as Sucrose, was found less than 96.5 percent of the total Sugar. The permissible percentage of Sucrose was minimum to be 96.5% whereas, it was found in the sample to be 91.54%. Similarly the maximum permissible Tanu Hydrochloric Acid was 1.09% whereas, the permissible limit of it was 0.5% only. Thus according to the analyst, the food article was adulterated. 2-2. Before the learned lower Court, oral as well as documentary evidence had been adduced and after analysis thereof, the learned Court below found that the food article was adulterated. Therefore, he passed an order of conviction and sentence as noted above. 2-3. It is important to note that on receipt of Exhibit Ka-1, recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-2, a letter to the C.M.O., Exhibit Ka-3, signature of the accused revisionist has been obtained, which has not been disputed. These documents show that the sample of Bura was taken from the accused. 2-4. After scanning the evidence, the learned Magistrate upheld the prosecution version and the same has got a seal of the Sessions' Court as well because the appeal has been dismissed. 2-5. The revision has been admitted mostly on the point of sentence. However, a legal point has also been urged as follows by way of amendment in the memorandum of revision :- A.Because item A-7.02 in appendix 'B' of the Act as it existed at the time of the taking of the sample of the applicant did not contain the definition of the words 'Boora', "Khandsari", "Khandsari Sugar", "Khandsari Sugar Desi", "Khandsari Sugar and Sulphur" and "Boora Sugar." B.Because for want of a definition of the aforesaid terms or words in the relevant items in appendix 'B' in 1985 the accused has been prejudiced. C.Because item Nos. A.07.01.O1 and A.07.02 have been substituted by the amendment of 1987 and the said amendment was made to cure the defect of vagueness in the items.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the record. I find that there is no force in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed. However, since the incident in this case took place on 23-12-1985, therefore, some leniency in the sentence may be shown.