KALU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. T. S. Davas, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. in opposition.

(2.) THE revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and has been sentenced; to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each offen ces. THE incident is dated 28-8-1980 on which date the Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from the revisionist suspecting it to be adulterated adulterated and got the same examined by the public analyst who reported the sample adul terated. THE conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is based on the finding of the Public Analyst who reported that sample is adulterated due to not being of prescribed standard under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY this revision petition is disposed of on the following terms. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court of Rs. 1000/- is confirmed and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the revisionist is sentenced to pay fur ther fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The revisionist is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and deposit the fine within three months. Revision disposed of. .