JYOTI SAROOP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order and judgment dated 20-12-1973 of the First Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah, in Cr. Appeal No. 314 of 1973 confirming the order of the trial court by which the applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 28-5-1972 at about 10 a.m. the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the applicant. He was found selling Vanaspati Chetak Brand in sealed tins. The Food Inspector got the seal of one of the tins broken in his presence and purchased the required quantity of the same and f sealed them in three bottles. One of the bottles as sent to the public analyst was found to be adulterated as free fatty acids and melting point were higher than the prescribed maximum limits. The applicant was then prosecuted.-' His defence was that he had been supplied the tins by the manufacturers and he was selling them in the same state as had been received by him and that there was no menswear on his part. Both the courts below took the view that the person selling the articles is also liable and that no warranty given by the manufacturers had been produced in this case.

(3.) The revision was admitted on the question of sentence on 8-1-1974. Subsequently a decision of K.N. Seth, J. had been reported in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Nanak Chand and another 1974 FAC 413. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore has prayed that he may be allowed to argue the revision on merit and the same may be decided in terms of this reported decision. The request being reasonable, he was allowed to argue the revision on merit.