- (1.) MUKTESHWAR Prasad, J. This criminal revision at the instance of the accused is directed against the judgment and order dated 3- 8-1987 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Banda whereby he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1987 and confirmed the conviction of the revisionist recorded by Sri C. L. Verma, the then Judicial Magistrate, Banda.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this revision were as under: On 12-12-1984 at about 9. 30 a. m. the revisionist was found selling edibles, including spices in his sop situated in village Mahuwa, P. S. Girwan Sri S. S. Pandey, Food Inspector, reached the shop and after disclosing his identity purchased 450 grams Zeera and paid Rs. 6. 80 P. as price thereof and obtained a receipt. He divided Zeera into three parts and sealed in three clean and dry bottles. A sealed container of one part of the sample was sent for analysis alongwith memorandum in form No. 7. After analysis by the Public Anaylst, it was found that there were extraneous material in the sample to the extent of 8. 5% which was in excess of 7%, the permissible maximum limit fixed under the rule. Therefore, the sample was found to be adulterated. After receipt of the report from the Public Analyst and obtaining sanction of C. M. O. , Banda (Local Health Authority) the prosecution was launched. Accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short the Act) on 4-8-1986. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Complainant S. S. Pandey examined himself as P. W. 1 and Ram Niranjan, Food Clerk as P. W. 2.
(3.) ACCUSED Ganesh Prasad in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. disclosed his age as 35 years and pleaded his false implication on account of old enmity with the Food Inspector. According to him Zeera, in question, was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of his maternal uncle Bahadur Prasad (Mama) and he had made his signature as a witness. He examined D. W. 1 Bahadur Prasad and D. W. 2 Raja Bhaiya Gupta in his defence. After having heard the Food Inspector, learned Counsel for the accused and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 16 of the Act and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default, he was ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.;