V.N.Misra, J. - (1.) THIS Is an application In revision by Irshad AH against the judgment and order dated 22-6-11981 of Sri B. K Sharma, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by [means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1981 and maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as recorded by Sri Kali Ram, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.
(2.) VERY briefly stated the prosecution case was that A. N. Purl Food Inspector took a sample of milk from the applicant on 30-7-1977 at 9.30 a.m. and paid its price. This sample was divided in three parts and filled in three clean phials. Notice in From VI was also served on the applicant. This sample, when sent to the public analyst, was found to be adulterated because the fatty contents In It were 22 per cent, less and the non-fatty solids were 27 per cent less than the prescribed standard. Sanction, therefore, obtained from the Chief Medical Officer and a complaint was filed against the applicant, which has resulted In his conviction as aforesaid. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that in this case section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was breached because no other witness was taken by the food inspector before whom the sample may have been drawn. The food inspector, however, explained that though there were other witnesses, they did not agree to testify in this case and their signatures could not be obtained. The non-production of independent witness was thus explained and, therefore, even though Section 10 (7) of the Act was not complied with it can have no adverse affect on the case. It was then urged that section 13 (2) of the Act was also not complied with and the applicant did not receive any copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The applicant was a resident of village Bandi, Police Station Sehra Mau in the district of Shahjahanpur, but it was not specified in the address whether the Police Station was Sehra Mau North or Sehra Mau South and it was probably because of this reason that the applicant did not receive any copy of the report of the Public Analyst. Report of the Public Analyst was, however, sent to the applicant by his address, which was described village Bandi, Post Office Raza district Shahjahanpur and this was not shown to be inadequate. This report of the Public Analyst was sent with the intimation as required by section 13 (2) and It was sent on 12-5-1971, after the filing of the case. Section 13 (2) of the Act was, therefore, fully complied with. There Is, therefore, no merit in this revision.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction of the applicant and the sentence Imposed on him are: maintained. THE applicant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as has been imposed by the court below. Revision dismissed.;