GAYA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAYA Prasad petitioner was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class at Etawah. He was sen tenced to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of six months. He went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, who maintained petitioner's conviction though reduced the sentence of impri sonment from one year's R. I. to six months' R. I. and the sentence of fine from Rs. l.000/- to Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of that reduced amount of fine he has been ordered to undergo three months' R. I. The peti tioner has now come up with this re vision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 11 A. M. on 17-5-1972 the Food Inspector concerned found the petitioner exposing milk for sale is Lakhna Bazar within the circle of police station Bakhewar in the district of Etawah. Sample of the milk was purchased. It was sent for analysis to public Analyst who found it adulterated. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner. He denied the prosecution case in its en tirety. Both the courts below have held that the petitioner was exposing milk for sale at the alleged time and place and its sample duly obtained by the Food Inspector was found adulte rated.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner ordered by the trial court and maintained by the lower appellate court are set aside. The petitioner is on bail. He need not sur render. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if already paid by the petitioner, shall stand refunded to him.