LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-140

GHAFFOR Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

Decided On August 29, 2018
Ghaffor Appellant
V/S
STATE AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist-Ghaffor under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.4.1988, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur convicting the revisionist under Section 16(1)(c) of the U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and further sentencing him under Section 7(iii) read with Rule 50(1) and Section 16(1)(a)(iii) of the said Act and sentencing him with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts of the case are that one complaint was filed against the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Police Station-Nagal, District Saharanpur alleging that on 14.11.1980 at 8-00 a.m., near Talheri Railway Station, the revisionist was found selling adulterated milk, which was checked by Deep Singh, Food Inspector by giving him introduction and tried to get the sample of milk and licence, the revisionist was found without licence and informed that he was selling the cow milk. When complainant tried to get the sample for chemical examination, he refused to give sample and challenged the complainant that he can do whatever he can, and thrown the milk from the tanker in the field, by throwing cycle, insulted the Food Inspector and fled away from the place of occurrence.

(3.) Deep Singh, Food Inspector, prepared memorandum (Ex.Ka1), Tehriri Report (Ex.Ka 2), after obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur for prosecution of the revisionist, prepared (Ex.Ka3), a complaint was filed before the competent court. The accused was summoned and charges were framed. The complainant in evidence has examined himself and two witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Raj Kumar and P.W. 2-Brajpal.