- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Lower Court record has been received. Carefully perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment and order dated 24-9-1984 passed by Addition al Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Nainital in criminal appeal No. 286 of l983.
(2.) THE revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of PFA Act for selling adulterated mustard oil and has been sentenced to undergo RI of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default further six months RI. THE impugned judgment disclose that the learned appellate Court has judicious ly considered the evidence of the prosecu tion and the defence of the accused and has judiciously considered the objections raised by the appellant-revisionist claim ing benefit of Section 19 (2) (b) of the PFA Act. THE Court below has given very good reason for not providing benefit of Section 19 (2) (b) of the PFA Act. This Court is in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Court below. On factual aspect the sample of mustard oil was found adulterated by the Public Analyst and oelic acid was found more than permissible limit of 3%. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 PFA Act is based on legal evidence and on proper appreciation of legal provisions under the Food Adul teration Act. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to justify interference. The revision peti tion does not disclose merit, it is accord ingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 26-9-1984 stands discharged. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital is directed to take proper steps for arrest of the accused-revisionist Chandra Dutt Pathak to serve the term of sentence
(3.) THE office to return back the lower Court record through special messenger within a week. Revision dismissed. .;