P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.)The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. In appeal his conviction has been maintained by the Sessions Judge, Nainital, but the sentence has been reduced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500. Hence this revision.
(2.)According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of ghee from the shop of the applicant at 5.30 P.M. on 31st July, 1977 on payment of its price, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, disclosed that the sample was adulterated, inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the rules. The report of the analysis disclosed that it contained Vanaspati oil in small quantity. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted. Both the Courts below have held the accused-applicant guilty. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the subordinate Courts to warrant interference in revision.
(3.)I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the spoon with which the ghee was taken out, was taken by the Food Inspector from some neighbouring shop. This is not correct. Learned counsel has showed me the statement of the Food Inspector that it was the accused himself, who had got the spoon from the neighbouring shop. It is further apparent that the spoon was clean and did not have any oil stuck to it. Thus no error was committed by the Food Inspector in taking out the sample of ghee with the spoon which he filled in separate phials. One of which was examined subsequently by the Public Analyst.