Chandra Dutt Pathak vs State of U.P.

R.K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Lower Court record has been received. Carefully perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment and order dated 2491984 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Nainital in criminal appeal No.286 of l983.

The revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of PFA Act for selling adulterated mustard oil and has been sentenced to undergo RI of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default further six months

RI. The impugned judgment disclose that the learned appellate Court has judiciously considered the evidence of the prosecution and the defence of the accused and has judiciously considered the objections raised by the appellantrevisionist claiming benefit of Section 19 (2)(b) of the PFA Act. The Court below has given very good reason for not providing benefit of Section 19 (2)(b) of the PFA Act. This Court is in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Court below.

On factual aspect the sample of mustard oil was found adulterated by the Public Analyst and oelic acid was found more than permissible limit of 3%.

The conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 PFA Act is based on legal evidence and on proper appreciation of legal provisions under the Food Adulteration Act. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to justify interference. The revision petition does not disclose merit, it is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 2691984 stands discharged. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital is directed to take proper steps for arrest of the accusedrevisionist Chandra Dutt Pathak to serve the term of sentence

The office to return back the lower Court record through special messenger within a week.

Revision dismissed.