MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. The learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On failure to pay fine, rigorous imprisonment for one more year was ordered. He filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Then he has come to this Court though this revision.

(2.) THE Food Inspector took sample of tobacco from the revisionist. It was sent to Public Analyst. He reported that the tobacco had been coloured by coaltar dye while use of colour was prohibited in case of tobacco. After necessary sanction the revisionist was prosecuted and he was found guilty for adulteration of tobacco as said earlier.

(3.) THE third argument is that the sample taken by the Inspector was not sent to Analyst but some other material was sent for analysis. This argument is elaborated by saying that in the printed receipt that has been given to the revisionist, it is printed that the sample was taken in three clean bottles, while in other papers and in evidence, it is said that the sample was taken in packets and packets were sent. So, it is argued that the bottle in which sample was taken, was not sent. In the printed receipt "bottles" is printed, because normally these samples may be taken in bottles ; but then throughout there is evidence that the sample was taken and sent in packets and on this point there is no cross- examination. So the evidence that sample was taken in packets and packets were sent, has to be accepted. THE revisionist cannot take, benefit of just this omission that in the printed receipt the word 'bottles' was not scored out. While dealing with the cases of Food Adultera tion, the Courts should keep in mind the future injury to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecution on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar, (1983) 2 SCC 384: AIR 1983 SC 545. THErefore, I reject the argument of the revisionist.