N.N.Sharma - (1.) THIS revision is directed, against order dated 2-10- 1981 by Sri V. P. Mathur, learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by which he partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1981 and reduced the sentence of revisionist to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THUS, the conviction of revisionist recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur by his order dated 30-7-12)81 in Case No. 226 of 1980 convicting revisionist under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was affirmed but the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment was maintained as given above. Prosecution story briefly stated was that on 17-10-1979, at about 9.30 A. M., Food Inspector found the revisionist carrying Dahi (curd) for sale in a pot on his cycle in village Maujepur. Food Inspector Sri Riyaz Ahmad (PW 1) suspected it to be adulterated. He disclosed his identity and purchased 750 grams Dahi on payment of Rs. 1.12 paise in presence of Raja Ram Yadav PW 2. After completing all necessary formalities, one phial was sent to Public Analyst who found Dahi to be adulterated as it contained fat 0.40 per cent and non fatty solids 4.89 per cent. Thus it was grossly deficit to the extent of 6 per cent in fat and 9 per cent in non fatty solids vide report Ext. Ka-6 dated 24-11-1979. The report disclosed that the sample at the time of analysis was fit for analysis and was properly sealed and fastened and the seals were intact. At the time of sampling documents Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2, bearing thumb impressions of revisionist were procured by Food Inspector and memorandum Form VII was prepared. However, revisionist clevery gave him name as Laxmi but the Food Inspector felt suspicious and demanded sureties and so he was sent to Police Station Jahanabad to ascertain his correct name and address vide letter Ext. Ka-3. The information was conveyed by Station Officer, Jahanabad that the correct name of revisionist was Gajraj son of Ujagar and so the matter was also brought to the notice of Chief Medical Officer as well as to the Public Analyst.
(3.) IN support of their case, prosecution examined Riyaz Ahmad (PW I) and Raja Ram (PW 2) as witnesses of fact and Ram Krishna (PW 3) as a formal witness to prove the sanction for prosecution accorded by Chief Medical Officer. In his statement, revisionist conceded that the sample was seized from him but it was purchased by him for the purposes of Katha. It was not meant for sale. He further conceded that his correct name was Gajraj and he did receive the copy of the report of Public Analyst along with covering letter despatched to him in compliance of Rule 9-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but he never applied for reanalysis by Director, Central Food Laboratory.;