- (1.) THIS revision has been preferred by Ramjeet against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2000 (Ramjeet Vs. State of U.P. And another) arising out of complaint case no.1484 of 1994 (State Vs. Ramjeet), under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short P.F.A. Act), P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi, wherein the Magistrate convicted and sentenced the revisionist under section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act and sentenced him with six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/ - fine with default stipulation and the criminal appeal was dismissed by Sessions Judge.
(2.) HEARD Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that revisionist was selling milk behind Andhrapool, P.S. Cantt, Varanasi on 17.6.1993 at 10 a.m. and was having no license for sale of milk. Upon suspicion of adulteration in milk, Food Inspector after introducing himself purchased 660 milliliter buffalo milk from the accused on payment of Rs.6.60 and after taking sample in accordance with rules sent it to Public Analyst for test. The report of Public Analyst concluded that the milk sample adulterated as 'milk fat' was deficient by 27% and 'milk solids not fat' were deficient by 26% in comparison to the prescribed standards. After obtaining sanction, the revisionist was prosecuted upon a complaint lodged against him under section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act. The evidence was recorded and trial court found the revisionist Ramjeet guilty of offence under section 7/16 P.F.A. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for a rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/ - with default stipulation. Against the conviction order of the Magistrate dated 14.12.1999, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Varanasi vide order dated 30.3.2006. Feeling aggrieved with which the convict Ramjeet has preferred this criminal revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order of conviction passed by the Magistrate as well as the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge in appeal are wrong on facts of law; that the courts below failed to consider that the sample of milk was not taken in accordance with rules as it was taken without staring the milk, which does not represent the entire milk and the revisionist is entitled for the benefit of not taking proper sample; that the Food Inspector did not comply with mandatory provisions under section 13/2 P.F.A. Act, so the conviction is liable to be set aside; that the provisions of section 10(7) of P.F.A. Act were not complied with and there was no independent witness of taking of the sample, which also belies the prosecution case; that the only interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution and no independent witness was examined so the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the revisionist; that there was contradiction between the report of Public Analyst and that of Central Food Laboratory, so the charges were required to be amended and fresh sanction was required, in absence of which the conviction is wrong and illegal; that for above reasons the impugned order of conviction as well as order of confirmation of conviction passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and the revisionist deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.;