CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Madho Lal Gupta vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 16 December 1996 · Citation: (1996) 12 AHC CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K.Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 16, 7
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1731 of 1982
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

R. K. Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the Revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the impugned Judgment and order passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1982 and also perused the trial Magistrate''s judgment and order dated 30382 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Special Court) Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 603 of 1981.

2.

The revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterating ''Mater Dal'' to the Food Inspector, Vijay Shankar Srivastava, P.W. 1 on 51279 at 11 a.m.

3.

The adulteration has been found by the public analyst, Varanasi to whom the sample was sent for analysis. The public analyst has reported that there was ''KhesariDal'' to the extent of 0.27% and 12.5% Dal was insect damaged. Thus on both counts the sample was reported adulterated. The prosecution has examined the Food Inspector who has supported the allegation on oath as P.W. 1 before the Court. The notice, receipt analyst report and all other papers including the sanction for prosecution have been proved by the Food Inspector. The Courts below have discussed the evidence of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused who asserted that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2) and 10(7) 01 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have been discussed in details and very cogent reasons have been given by both the Courts'' below to reject he defence objection.

4.

The conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is based on proper judicious discussion of evidence on record. The sentence of six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1.000/ in default three months R.I. is the minimum sentence provided under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

5.

The revision petition does not disclose merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence are confirmed. The interim order dated 6982 is vacated and bail bonds are cancelled.

Revision dismissed