Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Pursuant to order of date passed on Restoration Application, the revision is restored to its original number.

2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.

3. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, for Revisionist and Sri S. Ali Murtaza, A.G.A. for respondents.

4. This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 19.2.2004 passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 885 of 1993 convicting revisionist under Sections 2(i)(a), 7(i) and 16 (i)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1954”) read with Rule 28 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1955”) and sentencing him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. Thereagainst accused-revisionists preferred Criminal Appeals No. 12 of 2007 which has been dismissed by District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide judgment and order dated 9.5.2008. This revision has been filed challenging both the aforesaid orders.4. Now before examining the aforesaid two issues, the facts, in brief, leading to prosecution of revisionist and his conviction, may be taken note as under.

5. The facts in brief, leading to prosecution of revisionist and his conviction, may be taken note as under.

6. As per prosecution case, on 31.10.83 at 1.45 p.m., a retailer of food items, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, son of Shyam Lal Srivastava, resident of Teckar Sarai, Police Statio Thariyao, District Fatehpur was found exhibiting food item ‘kampat goli’ (candy) weighing around 4.5 kg tablet for sale under Police Station Kasodhar. He introduced himself to the said seller and on being suspicious of adulteration, Food Inspector, Shri Riyaz Ahmad purchased 600 such candies on payment of Rs. 2.70/- and obtained a receipt thereof. Having made payment as demanded by the seller he obtained receipts of sample purchase and payment therefor. Having purchased 600 gram candies these were divided in three equal parts and put into three clean, dry and empty phials which were labelled and marked with sample No. F.T.P. 5/83. Every part was sealed. Wrapped with a paper, every part was pasted with a slip scribed with code name, number and signature of the local health authority and seller’s signature was obtained on the affixtures. A notice on Form 6 was given to the seller. Persons present there were asked to stand witness but none was ready to testify. Having prepared a plate from a part of the aforesaid sample No. F.T.P. 5/83 and having kept therein a copy of Form 7 it was sealed. The sealed packet through a special messenger was sent to the Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for examination. A copy of Form-7 having mark of sample seal was separately sent to the Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow through registered post. Rest two parts in a sealed packet were deposited in the office of the local health authority with two copies of Form 7.

7. Submitting the examination result of the aforesaid sample FTP 5/83, Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh in his report No. 19352 dated 14.12.83 opined: “Two prohibited charcoal colorants, namely, rhodamine B and malachite green have been used in the sample”.

8. On sample in question being found to be below the norms as in Rule 6 Appendix B of the Act, 1954, on the above-mentioned rules being violated and on the report of the Public Analyst, Lucknow Ex. ka-4 being received, its information was given to the local health authority by complainant through Ex. ka-5 and permission Ex. ka-7 to initiate case against the accused was obtained. Thereafter, complaint Ex. ka-8 was submitted to the Court followed by an intimation Ex. ka-10 in that respect on behalf of the complainant to the accused by registered post. Accus