RAM DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo 12 months' simple imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Budaun. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased Haldi (Turmeric) from the applicant's shop in accordance with law. He divided the sample into three parts, one of which was sent by him for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was coloured with lead chromate. After obtaining necessary sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. The applicant's counsel has argued that the sanction in the instant case was not accorded by the District Medical Officer of Health but by the Deputy C.M.O. and as such the sanction was invalid. This argument has been dealt with by the Sessions Judge. I have carefully perused the reasons given by him. In my opinion, the Deputy C.M.O. was fully authorised to grant sanction.