BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Bhagwan Das son of Sri Suraj Bali Prasad was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment and order dated 21-9-82 and was awarded sentence of 6 months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1982 preferred by the revisionist was dismissed by the appellate Court by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh vide judgment and order dated 24/01/1984.

(2.) Judgments and order of both the Courts below have been challenged in this revision mainly on the ground that sanction under Section 20 (1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act was granted by the Competent authority on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst and after a copy of it alongwith the notice as required under Section 13 (2) of the Act was served upon the revisionist he got the sample analysed by Director Central Food Laboratory. In the first report of the Public Analyst besides the sample having been found sub-standard and not according to the prescribed standard, 36% of linseed oil was found to be mixed in the sample whereas the Director Central Food Laboratory only found the sample to be not in accordance with the standard as provided by the Rules and no mixture of linseed oil was found in the sample and according to the Director Central Food Laboratory the sample was adulterated under Section 2 (ia) (m).

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the sanction was granted by the competent authority on the basis of the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory and there was vital difference in the two reports. Therefore, fresh sanction was necessary for prosecuting and convicting the revisionist. In addition to the above argument it is further submitted that the offence was committed in the year 1980 and it is now about 18 years. The revisionist has already been in jail for about 3 months. Therefore, considering the above facts the order of sentence may be modified to the period already undergone and fine as may be awarded by this Court.