DAMODAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal revision application has been directed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated dated 24. 10. 1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 74/1993, 46/1992 confirming the judgment dated 02. 11. 1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Cr. Case No. 97/1982 by which he has convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Herein after referred to as the "act of 1954") and sentenced him to under 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, to suffer three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) TO prove the case against the accused petitioner, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst has opined in his report (Ex. P9) that the sample is adulterated as it does not confirm the prescribed standard. He has not mentioned that the sample sent to him is injurious to the health.

(3.) SINCE, the petitioner has produced the Bill/cash Memo Ex. D1) of Firm M/s. Satya Narain Bal Mukund of Delhi, issued by the manufacturer dealer to the vendor, it is a legal and valid warranty which cannot be disbelieved. The Gujrat High Court in the case of Ramanbhai Shivabhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujrat and Another (3), has held that if there is no written warranty in the prescribed from, the Cash Memo issued by the manufacturer or dealer to the vendor is held to be legal and valid warranty.