- (1.) S. N. Saxena, J. This revision application is directed against the judg ment and order dated 17-12-1992, passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, learned Sessions Judge Bijnor, in Criminal Appeal No, 20 of 1992, Anwar Ah v. State of U. P. and others, whereby the appeal was dismissed by him and the judgment and order dated 23-4-92 passed by Sri Hukum Singh, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, in Criminal Case No. 758/90 was confirmed. The learned A. C. J. M, had convicted the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigo rous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.) THE revisionist had got a grocery shop, besides other items he used to sell packets of turmeric (Haldi Powder) purchased as such by the manufac turer thereof who too was prosecuted but acquitted of the charges levelled against him. THE revisionist had not obtained warranty from the manufacturers of the packets and therefore, his contention that he was not responsible for adulteration had not found favour with the courts below. THE Food Inspector had purchased six packets of turmeric powder, each weighing 100 grams, for Rs. 12/ -. Necessary formalities were completed by him at the spot. THE sample was sent to Public Analyst along with a copy of memorandum in Form No. 7. THE Public Analyst after analysing the sample of turmeric powder sent a report (Ext. Ka-4), which revealed that the sample was found to have been coloured with coaltar dye and contained prohibited oil and water colours and thus was adulterated. After obtaining the sanction from the Chief Medical Officer for prosecution of the appellant, the Food Inspector had filed the complaint in the competent court. THE revisionist had denied that the samples were taken from his shop by the Food Inspector and had stated that he had been falsely implicated. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar was the manufacturer of the turmeric powder. Both the courts below found as a fact that the case put forward bj the complainant was truthful and correct and the Food Inspector had taken the sample from the shop of the revisionist which was found adulterated as mentioned above. There is no justification on the record for interfering with the aforesaid finding of fact. Both the courts below had given convincing reasons for placing reliance upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the said facts. I have also gone through the evidence on the record and find no good reasons for taking a different view of the matter, The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revi sionist was also entitled to get acquitted because the manufacturer of the turmeric powder had been acquitted did not appear to carry force. In the absence of warranty from the manufacturer, the responsibility for selling adulterated turmeric powder could not be shifted from the shoulders of the revisionist to that of the manufacturer. Due to this reason therefore, no inter ference was possible in this revision application. It was also important to mention that the revisionist in his statement had not even stated that he had purchased turmeric powder of which the sample had been taken by the Food Inspector from Durga Masala Prakash Gram Udyog. He had not filed any receipt in order to establish the purchase of the aforesaid tuimeric powder from the said concern. He, therfore, could not be given the protection under Section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was lastly contended that the sentence awarded to the revisionist was excessive. In my opinion, however, the sentence which is the minimum prescribed for the offence committed by the revisionist was reasonable and not excessive. No circumstances could be pointed out for the revisionist to show that the sentence awarded to him was liable to be reduced by this Court.
(3.) THE revision application, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. The revision application is dismissed at the stage of admission. The revisionist Anwar Ali is directed to surrender himself to undergo the rigorous imprisonment and also pay the fine if not already paid. Revision dismissed. .;