Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent-State.

2. This revision, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has arisen from the judgment and order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Fatehpur in Case No. 581 of 1996, convicting the revisionist under Section 2(i-a)(h) read with Section 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1954”) and 16(1-A) read with Rule 5 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1955”) and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, two month's imprisonment has also to be served by revisionist. Against the aforesaid judgment, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2005, which has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Fatehpur vide judgment dated 11.05.2007. Challenging both the aforesaid orders, revisionist has filed present revision.

3. The facts, in brief, are that a complaint being Case No. 581 of 1996 was lodged by Sri A.P. Shukla, Food Inspector, Fatehpur, stating therein that on 19.03.1996 at about 11 AM, the accused-revisionist, retail food seller, was found storing and displaying for sale 5 kilograms of mustard oil at Haswa under Police Station Thariaon, District Fatehpur. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the seller; and suspecting adulteration in the aforesaid food item, i.e., mustard oil, its 375 grams quantity was purchased by him against payment of Rs.12/- for examination of the sample by Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and receipt of its purchase was also obtained. Sample, so obtained, was divided into three parts and put into three clean, empty and dry phials. Every phial was labelled with code and sample number FTP/16/96/HWA-1. Every part was sealed. Slips with code name and signatures of the Local (Health) Authority were affixed on every part by wrapping the sample in paper and signatures of the seller were obtained on the joins. A notice on Form-6 was given to seller. All the proceedings were carried out in presence of the seller and witnesses. By putting one part of the aforesaid code number and sample number FTP/16/96/HWA-1 in a packet, one copy of the Form-7 in a sealed packet was put therein and the same was sealed and sent for examination to the Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. A copy of Form-7 which also contained the imprint of the seal used in making the specimen seal was sent separately through registered post to the Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The remaining two parts of sample, along with two copies of the Memo Form-7, were submitted in a sealed packet to the Office of the Local (Health) Authority.

4. The Public Analyst, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, after examining the aforesaid sample number FTP/16/96/HWA-1, sent his report number 2573 dated 20.04.1996, opining the presence of Argemone Oil in the sample conclusive. In this way, sample in question, as per the examination report, was found to be lower than the standard prescribed in Appendix-B of Rule 5 of Rules, 1955 which amounts to violation of Rule 5. After receipt of the report of Public Analyst, matter was sent to Chief Medical Officer and an approval under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 1954 was obtained for taking action against the seller for violation of Section 7/16 of Act, 1954 and Rule 5 of Rules, 1955. Thereafter the complaint was filed.

5. In the documentary evidences, in support of complaint prosecution adduced Ex. Ka-1, notice on Form-6 given to the seller, Ex. Ka-2, purchase receipt, Ex. Ka-3, copy of Form-7, and, receipt for sending the specimen seal, Ex. Ka-4, receipt of parcel in which the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Ex. Ka-5, registry receipt no. 1136 dated 20.03.1996, Ex. Ka-6, report of the Public

Click Here to Read the rest of this document