S.I.Jafri, J. - (1.) MUZAFFAR has filed this appeal against his conviction under section 7/16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- recorded by Sri R. P. Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by his judgment and order dated 7th September, 1977.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 10-12-1975 at about 12.30 P. M. in village Mohammadabad, District Azamgarh, Aswani Kumar Mangal Deo Tewari, Food Inspector PW 1 took sample of Haldi from the appellant who had kept the same at his shop for sale. On being suspect that the Haldi was adulterated, the Food Inspector informed the accused who was present in the shop that he would purchase Haldi as sample for being sent to the Public Analyst U. P. Lucknow for analysis. He, thereafter, purchased 600 grams of Haldi from the accused and paid him Rs. 2.25 paise as its price and obtained a receipt Ext. Ka-1 from the accused. He also took his thumb impression on it. THE Food Inspector divided the sample in three equal parts and each part was filled in three cleaned and dried phials and the phials were sealed and labels were pasted on them. THE thumb impression of the accused was taken on the labels and one of the phials was given to the accused. THE Food Inspector had also prepared four copies of memorandum of Form VII and affixed impression seal on them and two sealed phials and three copies of the memorandum were kept deposited in the office of District Medical Officer, Azamgarh. THE Food Inspector had sent one sealed phial and a copy of the memorandum to the Public Analyst for analysis and a copy of the memorandum with impression seal was also sent separately to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector. THE Public Analyst by his report No. 39812 dated 12-1-76 opined that the sample of Haldi was coloured with lead chromate, the use of which in colouring Haldi was prohibited. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that the Food Inspector did not pay any amount to [him and he had taken away small quantity of Haldi from the earthenpot and he had taken his thumb impression on various papers forcibly. The prosecution examined Aswani Kumar Mangal Deo, Food Inspector PW I, Harihar Singh PW 2, Chandrama Rai PW 3 in support of its case. Aswani Kumar narrated the prosecution case in detail as stated above. He further stated that the District Medical Officer Health ordered to launch prosecution against the accused on 24-1-1976. The Food Inspector further stated that he sent the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the appellant on 26-2-1976 by Registered Post and, therefore, the District Medical Officer of Health had sanctioned the prosecution on 25-3-1976. He also deposed that he had filed complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate on 7-4-1976 against the appellant.
(3.) HARIHAR Singh PW 2 has corroborated the statement of Aswani Kumar Mangal Deo Tewari PW 1. He had deposed that the sample of Haldi was taken from the appellant in his presence. PW 3 Chandrama Rai is a clerk of the office of C.M.O. Azamgarh. He has stated that one sealed phial alongwith memo was sent to the Public Analyst through a special messenger. He further stated that other articles were received by the Public Analyst on 12-12-1975 and on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst it was given to the Food Inspector on 20-2-1976. The appellant has examined Chaudhri Hari Shanker Prasad DW 1 in his defence who stated that the shop of the accused was in his neighbourhood. He deposed that the sample taking party had come at about noon 1-3/4 years ago at the shop of the appellant and he had also went there. The Food Inspector had poured down Haldi from an earthen pot on a paper. He further stated that the appellant informed the Food Inspector that the Haldi was not kept for human consumption but for Pooja but; the Food Inspector did not listen him and took away the sample of Haldi with him.;