RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 3 months' R.I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. I have also perused the statement of the Food Inspector, which has been filed along with the revision application.

(3.) According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Pisi Haldi from the Karina shop of the applicant at 10.30 A.M on 13th June, 1975 situate at Civil lines Jhansi City. This Pisi Haldi had been kept in one tin canister in the shop for the purpose of sale. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts, and sealed the bottles in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was Kent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was adulterated inasmuch as it contained sodium chloride to the extent of 6.58 per cent. The Public Analyst also found that the sample contained total ash to the extent of 10.74 per cent, which also exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 9 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted as above Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the accused fully established.