BRANDAVAN Vs. M P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th December, 1997, passed by first Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 125/89, whereby the judgment dated 4-10-1989, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 233/84 by which applicant found guilty and convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (lor short 'the Act') and awarded sentence for one year rigorous imprison-ment (for short 'r. I. ') with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, has been upheld by reducing R. I. up to six months. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code)

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution are that non-applicant No. 2 D. R. Chorasia being Food Inspector of the State under his authority inspected applicant on 20-1-1984 when applicant was carrying cow milk at Satgarha (Satrasta) Hoshangabad. On asking, the applicant not having any licence for selling the food substance and, thereafter the said Inspector after giving him notice has purchased milk 660 ml. for sample, took sample of milk and panchnama Ex. P-12 was prepared for taking sample. On the same date Form no. VII was also prepared and one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst (for short 'p. A. ') on the same day by Special Messenger.

(3.) AFTER examination, the report (Ex. P-17) was given by the Public analyst, by which alleged sample was not found as per standard prescribed under the Scheduled of the said Act. As per this report (Ex. P-17) the sample was not found as per standard prescribed under the law and report was given as "does not confirm". After receiving the said report by taking appropriate sanction the complalnt was submitted by the said Inspector. It was said that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was also sent. The trial was proceeded in which prosecution examined two witnesses namely Madan Lal Mamore (P. W. 11) and Dayaram Chorasiya (P. W. 2) Food Inspector, while applicant examined one witness Ramesh Kumar (D. W. 1) in his defence. The Trial Court vide its judgment convicted and sentenced applicant as mentioned above. On filing the appeal, the judgment was affirmed as said above.