RAMJEE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 8.12.1999 passed by 4th Additional Ses - 21/98 sions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 69/95 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.8.1995 rendered by S.D.J.M., Gaya, in G.R. Case No. 11/93, Tr. No. 355/95. The revisionists were convicted for an offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellate Court confirmed the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court against which this revision has been preferred.

(2.) IT was submitted before me by the revisionists ' lawyer that in the lower Court the public analyst and the Director, who has endorsed the report (Ext. 12) of the public analyst, (Ext. 7) were not examined and, so, the report of the public analyst and the Director were unreliable. It was further submitted that the informant of the case on the basis of whose report the case was initiated was not examined. Moreover, offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) was not proved because the report of the public analyst indicated that the "chhena" was mixed with starch and starch is a food article. The analyst report did not show that the starch, with which the alleged sweet -meat made of chhena, was injurious to health and, therefore, the revisionists should not have been convicted nor they were liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i). The order of conviction and sentence was, therefore, illegal and hence the judgments of the two lower Courts may be set aside.

(3.) THE order of conviction is altered to one under Section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Food Adulteration Act, but the sentence awarded by the Court below is maintained.