- (1.) REVISION has been preferred by Ram Narain against the judg ment and order dated 19-4-84 passed by Sri S. K. Agnihotri, III Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1983. He was convicted for an offence under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sen tenced to a term of six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. WOO/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer further rigorous imprison ment for fifteen days. Such judgment was passed by Sri S. K. Bhatt, the then Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bareilly on 17-1-1983. As the appeal filed by the accused failed he has preferred this revision against the judgment of the Ap pellate Court.
(2.) I have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. The learned counsel for the revisionist informs that the revisionist has actually died. However, this factum could not be ascertained through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly who reported that he was not residing at his given ad dress. The factum of his death having not been established, I propose to decide the revision on merits. A sample of milk had been taken from the revisionist on 7-3-79 at about 2. 30 p. m. The Chief Food Inspector, P. D. Srivastava PW 1 had been examined and his testimony was supported by R. B. Sharma PW 2. R. B. Sharma PW 2 had accom panied the Chief Food Inspector and was with him when the sample was taken. The sample could not be sent for analysis be cause at the instigation of the revisionist, certain bad elements were attracted who terrorized the Chief Food Inspector and destroyed the bottles of sample at the spot. The absence of public witnesses had plausibly been explained. The guilt of the accused/revisionist was proved by satisfac tory and convincing evidence. The im pugned judgment passed by the I Appel late Court does not suffer from any il legality, impropriety or incorrectness. The revision has no merit and it is hereby dis missed. The revisionist shall undergo punishment awarded to him viz. six months' rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of pay ment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.
(3.) THE office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Court for need ful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months. Revision dismissed. .;