KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) THE revisionist Pati Ram has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 rendered by Sri A.K. Srivastava, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1998, Pati Ram vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist's appeal and confirmed his conviction and sentence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), recorded by the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.
(2.) IT may be mentioned that the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under section 7/16 of the Act to under go rigorous imprisonment of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. Two thousand only and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment of two months. The facts leading to this revision are that on 18.3.1993, at 2.45 PM, concerned Food Inspector took a sample of 375 grams of refined mustard oil from the revisionist after conforming to the formalities enjoined by the Act. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts and labelled and sealed each of them in accordance with the Rules and forwarded one sealed bottle to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after the analysis, submitted his report to the effect that the sample of the refined mustard oil was adulterated. The Food Inspector, after obtaining sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi to prosecute the revisionist, filed a complaint in the court of the concerned Magistrate.
(3.) THE revisionist was charged under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.;