UMA SHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Uma Shanker has filed this appeal against his conviction u/Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - passed by Sri C. B. Jayaswal, V Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by his judgment and order dated 18 -1 -1979.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that a raid was organised by the direction of the CMO, Azamgarh on 7 -12 -75 in the town of Chiraiyakot in the District of Azamgarh and at about 12.30 p. m. the same day Dharamdeo Yadav PW 1 Food Inspector took the sample from the shop of the appellant. The aforesaid Inspector purchased 375 grams of linseed oil (Tilsi Oil) for sample in the presence of witness Uma Shanker Misra PW 3. The Inspector after taking the sample served a notice in form no. 6 and after dividing the sample in 3 equal parte in separate phials sealed the same on the spot. He also took the signature of the appellant and also of Uma Shanker Misra PW 3 on the aforesaid form No. 6 and handed over one of the three phials to the appellant. Subsequently, the sample taken from the appellant was sent to the Public Analyst on 10 -12 -75 who after analysis reported that the sample was adulterated. It was found by the Public Analyst that the sample contained about 17% of linseed oil and the remaining was mustard oil. This report was received by the Inspector on 11 -3 -76. The Inspector sent the copy of the report on 3 -11 -76 in compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Lateron the Food Inspector after obtaining the requisite sanction filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 1 -7 -76. During the course of the trial the accused applied for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for examination but the request was rejected by the court on 19 -7 -77. However, the appellant further applied to the court for sending his sample to the Director Food Laboratory, Calcutta for examination. The Court recalled his earlier order and sent the same to the Director of Food Central Laboratory, Calcutta on 19 -10 -78 for analysis but the parcel containing the sample was returned back to the trial court with the report that the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the trial court did not take any action further.

(3.) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case.