O.P.Pradhan, J. - (1.) This revision by convict is directed against the order dated 30-5-1983, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1982 by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by Judicial Magistrate II, Rae Bareli on 18-8-1982 under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Briefly speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that on 24-11-1981 at about 2 p.m., the Food Inspector purchased from the revisionist 660 ml. of milk as a sample for analysis against a price of Rs. 1.32. This milk was divided into three equal parts and filled up in three separate dry and clean bottles and formalin was also added as a preservative. After observing due formalities, one of these bottles, containing the sample of milk, was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 4-12-1981 that the sample, sent to him, contained fat 16% less and non-fatty solids about 13% less than the prescribed standard. After obtaining sanction from the Local Authority/ Chief Medical Officer, Rae Bareli, the Food Inspector instituted a complaint in the competent court for prosecution of the revisionist in connection with the offence under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revisionist guilty under the said offence and sentenced him to undergo six months R.1. and pay fine of Rs. 1500/-. Dissatisfied with this order of conviction and sentence, an appeal was carried by the convict, Sohan Lal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli and this gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1992. It was heard and dismissed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli by means of his judgment and order dated 30-5-1983. Feeling still aggrieved, this revision was preferred by Sohan Lal against the said order of conviction and sentence.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as also the 'earned Government Advocate and perused the record.;