Aniruddha Singh ORDER
Aniruddha Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
2. The revisionist-accused Amrit Lal has preferred this revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 23.05.1988 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate Fatehpur, in Criminal Case No. 660 of 1986, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Hussainganj, District Fatehpur. He has also assailed the order dated 30.08.1990 passed by Special/Additional Session Judge Fatehpur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1988 confirming conviction under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In case of default, three months additional rigorous imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case is that on 24.03.1984 at about 9.45 a.m. on octroi out post near Bhitaura road, Food Inspector of Nagar Palika Sri R.N. Trivedi found the accused exhibit about one and a half quintal of Bejhar for sale. On being suspicious of adulteration, he introduced himself to the accused and purchased 600 grams of Bejhar and paid 60 paise and obtained receipt of sale. He divided the purchased Bejhar in three equal parts and kept them in three separate clean, dry and empty phials and pasted labels containing sample number RNT-2/84 in all the three phials and sealed them. He pasted the code slip containing code name, number and signature of local health authority and obtained thumb impression of the accused over it. A notice under Form-6 was given to the seller Amrit lal. The above proceeding was conducted in presence of the seller and witness Ranjit Singh, Safai Naik. It was mentioned that no public witness agreed to be a witness in the said proceeding.
4. The sample phial containing Form-VII in the sealed packet, was sent to Public Analyst Varanasi. The sample seal alongwith Form-VII was also sent to the Public Analyst under registered post. The remaining two phials were deposited alongwith the memorandum Form-VII the office of local health authority.
5. The Public Analyst found 19.64% Khesari in the sample. After receipt of the said report from the Public Analyst, he made a report to the local health authority. The C.M.O Fatehpur accorded prosecution sanction u/s. 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Food Inspector was authorised to launch the prosecution against the accused. The C.M.O. Sent a notice to the accused apprising him with the facts of the case and also asking him to get him sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, if he so likes. But he did not avail this opportunity.
6. Charge u/s. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed against revisionist. The accus........