R.P.Shukla - (1.) APPLICANT Baboo Lal was convicted on 17-1-81 by Sri V. K. Gupta, the then Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Criminal Case no. 556 of 1980 and was sentenced under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo an imprisonment of three months. He preferred appeal against the said order and judgment which was heard and decided by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, on 6-1-1982. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has pre; erred this revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 25th October, 1979, the Food Inspector, Sri M. C. Garg, purchased 600 grams of Ajwayan from the shop of applicant Baboo Lal. It was divided into three parts. Each part was filled in a dry and clean phial. The phials wrre duly sealed. One of the phials was sent to the public analyst through memorandum in Form 7 (Ext. Ka 3). The public analyst found that the Ajwayan was adulterated as it contained inorganic extraneous matter more than the prescribed limit of two percent. A report (Ext. Ka 5) was sent to the Chief Medical Officer for sanctioning the prosecution. The Chief Medical Officer sanctioned the prosecution vide Ext. Ka 6. There upon the complaint was filed. After due trial, he was convicted by the Magistrate as aforesaid. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged firstly on the ground that section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with. Secondly, in Ajwayan the proportion of organic and inorganic extraneous matter shall not exceed three percent and two per cent respectively and, therefore, the learned counsel has contended that the report of the public analyst shows extraneous matter exceeding two per cent and it is not clear whether it was organic extraneous matter or inorganic extraneous matter and, therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the applicant. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the State Counsel and have perused the record.
(3.) IT is evident from the record that Sri M. C. Garg sent the report of the public analyst on 8-4-1980 along with the intimation to the applicant. Narendra Kumar PW 3 stated that the accused (present applicant) was informed on 29-2-1980 along with the report of the public analyst. As the address was wrongly written, a fresh intimation was sent to the accused through registered post. The accused refused and the registered letter was returned to the Chief Medical Officer's office. IT shows that the prosecution did attempt to inform the accused (present applicant) about the report of the public analyst, but the accused himself refused to accept the same. In the circumstance, the applicant cannot be allowed to urge that no notice was sent to him as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Ext. Ka 8, the document which is on record, clearly proved that intimation was sent. Thus section 13 (2) of the Food Adulteration Act has fully been complied with in this case. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, I have carefully looked into the Ext. Ka 4 which is the report by the public analyst. According to this report, inorganic extraneous matter found by public analyst was 4.07 per cent. In Appendix 'B' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the standard of Ajwayan is prescribed at A. 05.23 and note to A. 05.23 lays down that inorganic extraneous matters shall not exceed two percent by weight. Thus the inorganic extraneous matter found in the sample was more than the prescribed limit of two percent. Thus the contention of the learned counsel is repelled by the contents of the report of the public analyst (Ext. Ka 4). The Ajwayan taken in sample from the applicant was thus found adulterated. No other point has been raised before me and the two points raised do not find any support from the record and the revision, therefore, fails.;