RAGHUBIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act, and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo three months R.I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Safed Zeera from the shop of the applicant on 24th May 1977 in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it contained organic extraneous matter 9% inorganic extraneous matter -12% and Zeera 90.88%. In his opinion organic extraneous matter exceeded the maximum limit of 3%. After obtaining the requisite sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has then argued that the defence taken up by the accused has not been considered by the Sessions Judge. He has placed before me the entire statements of Badri Prasad DW 1 and Satya Narain DW 2. The defence taken up by the accused was that the Zeera from which the sample was taken was not exposed for sale. It was stored for the purpose of cleaning its impurities. LEARNED counsel argues that under section 10 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector was not empowered to take such a sample for analysis. On a careful consideration of the statements of both these witnesses, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the defence taken up by the accused. No receipt has been produced to show that Satya Narain sold the Zeera in question to the accused applicant. The Zeera itself was kept in a tasla along with the other articles and was being exhibited for sale. As such, the defence appears to be concocted. It was considered and rightly rejected by the trial court, since the appellate court has not made any specific mention of the defence, hence I have allowed the learned counsel for the applicant to place the statements of the witnesses and have considered the same. The Zeera was being sold at the shop of the accused-applicant and was duly purchased by the Food inspector in accordance with law. There is no merit in this contention also.