PRADUMAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo six months R. I. His eonvition and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad, hence this revision.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of Bundi Ka Laddoo from the shop of the applicant on 3rd December, 72 at 12. 30 p. m. He took 500 grams of the sample, divided it into three separate bottles, and sent one of which for analysis to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was coloured with an unpermitted coaltar dye, viz. metanil yellow colour index No. 138. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted as above, Both the courts below have held the prosecution case established. After a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in their findings to warrant interference in revision.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. He has argued that the accused has denied the taking of sample of the Bundi Ka Laddoo from his shop. He has also denied his signatures on form No. 6 (Ex. Ka 1) as also the receipt Ex. Ka 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proving the taking of sample from the shop of the applicant. I have also carefully scrutinized the aforesaid documents and have also perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses.