P.N.Harkauli, J. - (1.) GAYA Prasad, applicant, was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 24-8-1976 the Food Inspector B. L. Shukla (P. W. 1) took a sample of the Barfi which the applicant had exposed for sale at his shop situate in Panki, Kanpur, and he sent it; for analysis to the Public Analyst who reported that it was adulterated inasmuch as it was coloured with a prohibited coaltar dye. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied that he was selling the Barfi. He alleged that he had himself purchased it for offering it at the temple and the Food Inspector wrongly took a sample from him. The Id. Magistrate believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and convicted and sentenced the applicant and, as already mentioned, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld his judgment.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was noncompliance with the provisions of Section 13 (2), Section 11 (1) (c) (i) and (iii), Sec. 13 (2) and Rules 9 (i) and 18 and the violations of these provisions of law, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, vitiated the conviction. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector himself that he did not comply with the provisions of section 11 (1) (c) (i) (ii). The aforesaid provisions make it clear that it is the duty of the Food Inspector who took the sample to - (a) Send one of the parts of the sample to the Public Analyst, and (b) Send the remaining two parts to the local (health) authority.;