JUDGEMENT
V.K.Khanna, J. -
(1.)The applicant was convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution the applicant carried on a grocery shop and at the shop had exhibited Gram Dal (Chane Ki Dal) for selling purposes. On 16-8-1974 at about 1 P. M. Shri Bhanu Prakash Garg, who was Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Khurja, visited the shop of the applicant and after disclosing his identity purchased 750 grams Gram Dal. The aforesaid Dal was sent to the Public Analyst for report and was found to contain about 25% of Kesari Dal which is injurious to health and sale of which is prohibited under R.I. 44-A of the rules framed under the Act. The trial court believing the prosecution case found the applicant guilty under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and Rs. 1,000.00 fine. The applicant thereafter preferred an appeal which has been decided by the VII Additional Sessions Judge Bulandshahr. Before the appellate court the order of the trial court was challenged on three grounds. Firstly, it was challenged on the ground that there was no independent witness who may have been present at the time when the Food Inspector took the sample. The Sessions Judge has rightly held that Reoti Prasad was an independent witness. The Sessions Judge in the alternative has also held that even if the testimony of Reoti Prasad is discarded taking of the sample from the applicant is proved in view of the statement of the applicant under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. in which he admitted taking of the sample by the Food Inspector and receiving one of the bottles from him. The decision of the Sessions Judge on the aforesaid question, in my opinion, does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference in this revision. The second argument which was advanced before the Sessions Judge was that the Dal was not meant for human consumption but was meant for cattle and the aforesaid fact was disclosed to the Food Inspector. On the appraisal of the evidence the two courts below have rightly recorded the findings that the applicant had not told the Food Inspector that the Dal was meant for the consumption of cattle only. The aforesaid findings recorded by the two courts below are based on correct appraisal of oral evidence. Lastly it was argued before the Sessions Judge that while granting sanction the District Medical Officer of Health had not applied his mind. The actual words Written by the sanctioning authority have been quoted in the judgement. It is one of those cases in which the sanctioning authority had specifically written that he has per sued all the papers and thereafter he has accorded sanction. The two courts below have been right in holding that the sanction was granted by the sanctioning authority after applying his mind. Before the Sessions Judge a prayer was also made regarding reduction of sentence on the ground that the applicant was an aged person. In view of the provisions of Sec. 16(1-A) of the Act minimum sentence which has to be awarded is not less than one year. The sentence awarded is the minimum provided under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There was thus no ground for reduction of sentence also.
(2.)For the reasons stated above, the present revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He will immediately be taken into custody to serve out his sentence. Revision dismissed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.