Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.4.1988 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1987 by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause in Criminal Case No. 750 of 1986.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.5.1983 at about 5.30 p.m. the revisionist No. 2 Husnain was exhibiting for sale, carbonated water of chocolate colour in Pratishthan Mandi Chopla Garh near the house of Vinod Kumar. The said water was suspected to be adulterated and therefore Sri Narendra Pal Singh Rawat, the Food Inspector took the sample after serving upon Husnain a notice in form No. 6. The carbonated water was purchased in a sealed bottle for Rs. 27/-. Laxmi Chand and Nazir Hussain put their signatures as witness of the sample taken. The revisionist No. 2 Hasnain also put his signature on the sample and received the price of the sample phials. The other public witness of the locality did not cooperate when the samples were being taken about which mention was made in the documents. Shri Narendra Pal Singh Rawat, Food Inspector prepared the labels. The bottles were kept in three separate phials, which were sealed and stamped. One of the samples was sent to the public analyst, Lucknow on 4.5.1983 for analysing. The remaining two phials were submitted to the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad. When the report of the public analyst was received, it was found that without declaration saccharine was found to be used in the sample in contravention of provisions of Rule 47 of the Rules framed under the Act. After receipt of the report of the public analyst, a report was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad to obtain necessary sanction to prosecute the accused. On 19.3.1984, the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad accorded sanction. After which the complaint was filed before the Court.

3. Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Nazir Hussain as PW-1, Jaipal Singh as PW-2, Jeet Singh as PW-3.

4. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons again denied of having committed any offence. The accused Intazar Ali said that he had a factory which manufactured carbonated water, but he denied and said that Husnain was not his servant.

5. The learned trial Court after perusing the evidence on record found both the accused persons guilty and convicted both the accused persons under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 47 of the Rules framed under to the imprisonment mentioned above.

6. Feeling aggrieved the appellants preferred the Appeal No. 125 of 1987, which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the present revisionists have come up in the revision.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists had argued that the impugned order of conviction passed by the Magistrate as well as the impugned order of the appellate Court in Appeal are wrong on facts of law. Since both the Courts below failed to consider that the samples were not examined in accordance with the rules. The Food Inspector was not examined. He did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2), Section 10(7) and Rule 16(c) of the Food Adulteration Act. He has further argued that only interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution and no independent witness was examined, hence the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the revisionists.

9. It is well-settled law that in revisional jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction the high Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure or there is misconception of misreading of evidence or Court below h