Kailash v. State

Court No. - 26

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 197 of 1991

Revisionist :- Kailash Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Bn Tewari,Dharmendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 25.1.1991 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1990, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months passed by A.C.J.M., Varanasi vide judgement and order dated 9.4.1990 in Case No. 1466 of 1989, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along-with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

The brief facts of the case are that on 8.11.1987, O.P. No. 2 checked the shop of appellant in mohalla Kakarmatta under police station Maruadih in Varanasi City and he doubted the sale of adulterated mustard oil at the shop of appellant, therefore, he purchased 375 grams mustard oil from the shop of appellant for Rs. 11.25/- after furnishing a notice in form no. 6 to the appellant and making the payment of above purchase under receipt. It is said that the appellant refused to put his signature on form no. 6 on the receipt for purchase and for that above Food Inspector, Raj Narain Singh had to obtain the signature of the witness Moti Lal in lieu of refusal by the appellant. According to prosecution story, the purchased mustard oil was divided into three equal phials in presence of witness and the appellant and these three divided shares of the purchased oil were kept in three separate phials after putting suitable labels thereon. The appellant is said to have refused to put his signature on the sample. Also, the Food Inspector obtained the signature of witness Moti Lal for the act of refusal by the appellant to put his signuature on above three phials of the sample. The Food Inspector sent one of the samples to Public Analyst, U.P. Lucknow after sending a form no.7 by registered post. Rest of the two samples were deposited in the office of the CMO, Varanasi. According to the prosecution vide report no.20124 dated 17.12.1987, the Public Analyst reported that the mustard oil in question was found to be adulterated and