P.K.Jain - (1.) LIST has been revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.
(2.) HEARD learned A.G.A. and perused the memo of revision as well as the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court. The revisionist was convicted by the trial court under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The criminal appeal No. 334 of 1982 preferred by him was also dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court. It is against the judgment and order of the appellate court that the present revision has been preferred. The main grounds on which the order of conviction and sentence is lying are that there was non-compliance of the provision of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There was marginal deficiency in non-fatty solids and that C.M.O. did not apply his mind while according sanction and lastly that there was violation of the provisions of Section 302, Cr. P.C.
(3.) CONSIDERING the first ground taken by the revisionist, the trial court has observed that Food Inspector stated on oath that no person was ready to become witness although efforts were made to summon independent witnesses. The trial court held that there was thus, compliance of the provision of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There was no error in the finding of the trial court in this regard. As regard second ground, the appellate court has cited various cases decided by this Court and in conformity with the decisions of this Court in number of cases the appellate court held that it cannot be held that the deficiency which was found in the sample in non-fatty solid contents can be ignored being marginal. There is no error in this finding of the trial court. There is no material to hold that C.M.O. while according sanction did not apply his mind. There is also no material to show that there was any violation of the provision of Section 302, Cr. P.C. The revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;