BALAK RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This Revison has been directed against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, dated 14-12-1990 in Criminal Appeal No, 42 of 1990, dismissing the Appeal of the accused-revisionist who was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months' and a fine of Rs. 1,000 imposed on 27-6-1990 by the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Case No. 890 of 1988.

(2.) IN the instant case the Food INspec tor, Rampur, purchased a sample of milk from the accused- revisionist at Kalpi Bus stand on 17-6-1988 at 9 a. m. After observing the necessary formalities on phial of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the milk was adulterated. After holding the trial the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the ac cused- revisionist in the aforesaid manner. An appeal was preferred by the accused-revisionist which was dismissed by the Ses sions Judge.

(3.) THE emphasis was on the point that it should be separately sent. If both the Rules are read together it will be seen from Rule 18 that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst. In the in stant case the dispute is with regard to the observance of Rule 17. So I do not think that the Supreme Court case has any application in deciding the points raised by the learned counsel. Reliance also is placed on the Single Bench decision in fhool Singh v. State of U. P. and another, 1991 (2) EFR 344 but in that case there was no evidence to show that the sample was sent by registered post. So it was held that the prosecution has failed to establish the dispatch of the materials referred to in Rules 17 and 18 to the Public Analyst by registered post, which are man datory.