- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revisions has been preferred against judgment and order dated 17-11-1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1987, Chandrika Prasad v. State, by which the learned IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence awarded in Criminal Case No. 280 of 1984, State v. Chandrika Prasad, by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and directed to undergo six months R. I. and also a fine of Rs. 1000 was imposed. It was also directed that in case of non deposit of fine the revisionist had to undergo three months further R. I.
(2.) HEARD Sri C. K. Parikh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anoop Ghosh, learned AGA and have gone through the record. The prosecution case is that revisionist Chandrika Prasad was selling burfi at his shop of village Chahania market, police station Balua district Varanasi on 29-7-1982 at 2. 00 p. m. when the shop was inspected by Sri C. P. Srivastava, Food Inspector who took sample of 1-1/2 kg. burfi for Rs. 21 and kept it in three different bottles in equal quantity. Signature of the accused was obtained and one sample was sent to public analyst wherefrom report dated 17-12-1982 was received containing the fact that burfi was adulterated. Later on, one sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory wherefrom report was received that the burfi was adulterated. After recording the statement of PW 1 Sri C. P. Srivastava, Food Inspector, PW 2 Rajendra Prasad, Food Clerk and DW 1 Shyam Sunder Singh, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi passed order of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved therefrom, Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1987 was preferred by Sri Chandrika Prasad which was dismissed on 17-11-1987. Hence this revision has been preferred.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submits that Section 10 (7) and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with and, therefore, the accused revisionist is entitled for acquittal. Section 10 (7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act contemplates that "where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. ";