MADHO LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1996-12-5
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 16,1996

MADHO LAL GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the impugned Judgment and order passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1982 and also perused the trial Magistrate's judgment and order dated 30-3- 82 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Special Court) Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 603 of 1981.
(2.) THE revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterating 'mater Dal' to the Food Inspector, Vijay Shankar Srivastava, P. W. 1 on 5-12-79 at 11 a. m. The adulteration has been found by the public analyst, Varanasi to whom the sample was sent for analysis. The public analyst has reported that there was 'khesari-Dal' to the extent of 0. 27% and 12. 5% Dal was insect damaged. Thus on both counts the sample was reported adul terated. The prosecution has examined the Food Inspector who has supported the al legation on oath as P. W. 1 before the Court. The notice, receipt analyst report and all other papers including the sanction for prosecution have been proved by the Food Inspector. The Courts below have discussed the evidence of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused who asserted that there was no compliance of the man datory provisions of Sections 13 (2) and 10 (7) 01 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have been discussed in details and very cogent reasons have been given by both the Courts' below to reject he defence ob jection. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is based on proper judicious discussion of evidence on record. The sentence of six months R. I. and fine of Rs. 1. 000/- in default three months R. I. is the minimum sentence provided under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adultera tion Act.
(3.) THE revision petition does not dis close merit and the same is accordingly dis missed. THE conviction and sentence are confirmed. THE interim order dated 6-9-82 is vacated and bail bonds are cancelled. Revision dismissed. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.