N.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1999, passed by the 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1998, Shamsuddin v. State dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 17.8.1998 convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1990, State v. Shamsuddin to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the accused revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate. The brief facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that the sample of 'matar ka besan' was collected by the Food Inspector from the shop of the accused at Mohanlal Ganj, district Lucknow, from his shop on 7.6.1988 and after an analysis of the said sample, it was found to be containing 'starch of khesari' in a small quantity. Accordingly, a case under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was instituted against the revisionist in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. The sample taken from the shop of the revisionist was sent for the report of the Public Analyst and it was found adulterated. The public analyst on the basis of the microscopic test, found mixture of starch of khesari and matar. The public analyst reported that the use of the flour of khesari is prohibited. After receiving the report of the public analyst, a complaint was filed. The accused was charged under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Prosecution examined Ravindra Singh, Food Inspector, P.W. 1 and Smt. P. K. Rastogi, Food Clerk. The Food Inspector stated how the 'matar ka besan' was exhibited for sale and how after performing all the formalities, as required under the Rules, purchased 'matar ka besan' from the shop of the revisionist. He has proved all the documents prepared by him at the time of taking sample. The accused has also examined himself in defence. The defence case is that no sample was taken from his shop and it was not meant for sale. Besides this defence theory, he contended the non -compliance of certain procedure before the trial court. Learned trial court rejected all the contentions and convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as above. The accused preferred an appeal against this judgment, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has argued before me that the accused moved an application for further examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory by exercising his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and this application was rejected by the learned Magistrate without any sufficient reason and his valuable right has been affected. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I find that both the courts below have recorded a finding that there is sufficient compliance of the provision under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;