LALU BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-9-1997 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Original Case No. 1200/1993 whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act of 1954") sentencing him to suffer six months' SI and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default further SI of three months, which has been affirmed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal "Appeal No. 145/97, decided on 2-8-1999, the applicant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this revision application under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. Sans unnecessary detail/oils, the facts lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that on 31-5-1993, the Food Inspector, P.D. Khare came to the grocery shop of the applicant and made a demand of sevain and suspecting the same to be adulterated, gave notice in Form No. 6 and bought three packets of sevain containing 200 gms. in each packet in total 600 gms. after making payment of Rs. 13.50 paise to the applicant. A receipt was also obtained. All the three packets of sevain were separately sealed in a think paper wrapped with the help of thread and were sealed in accordance with law. One packet was sent to the Food Analyst, the other packet was sent to the Local Health Office and the third packet was kept in the office of the Food Inspector. The sample of sevain was received in the office of Public Analyst on 3-6-1993. In the report, dated 12-7-1993, the sample was not found in conformity with the standard laid down under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, "the Rules"). The report of sample was sent to the Food Inspector. It is said that the Local Health Authority after having served notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 prosecuted the applicant.

(2.) The learned Trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954, which applicant denied. Thereafter, the prosecution examined Food Inspector, P.D. Khare, the panchnama witness Amritlal Gupta and S.D. Choudhary, Clerk of the Office of Dy. Director (Food).

(3.) The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record found that charge is proved and eventually convicted the applicant for the aforesaid charge and passed the sentence of six months' SI and fine. The appeal, which was filed by the applicant has been dismissed by learned First Appellate Court. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the applicant.