IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISON NO. 2/2003 Mohamad Yasin S/o Mahamud, R/o Sultanpur, P.S. Laksar, District Hardwar. .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal (Now, State of Uttarakhand) .… Respondent January 4, 2011 Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA, present for the State/respondent. HON’BLE PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This revision is filed against the judgment and order 7.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-III, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1999, whereby the said court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the revisionist Mohamad Yasin under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 recorded by the trial court (Special Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun) in Case No. 958 of 1996. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.4.1996, at about 6 am, PW1 J.S. Jayara, Food Inspector intercepted Mohamad Yasin, carrying milk in two canes for sale in the market, near Bhagwan Ashram, Rishikesh. Disclosing the intention of the purchase of milk for analysis, the Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of the mixed milk of cow and she buffalo from the accused revisionist and paid rupees six as price of purchase to him. The Food Inspector 2 divided the purchased milk in three equal parts and mixed preservative formalin in it. Thereafter these samples were sealed and on each of the samples, the thumb impression of the accused revisionist was got affixed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for analysis along with the report in Form No. 7. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. A-5) was received disclosing that there was deficiency of 3 per cent fatty solids and 33 per cent non-fatty solids in the sample. On this, the Food Inspector got sanction (Ex. A-7) obtained from the Local Health Authority (Chief Medical Officer), Dehradun and filed the criminal complainant (Ex. A-8) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 4. After the accused was summoned, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 J.S. Jayara (Food Inspector) under Section 244 CrPC. On the basis of the evidence, adduced on behalf of the complainant, charge of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed on 22.1.1997 against the accused Mohamad Yasin, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter PW1 J.S. Jayara was further cross- examined under Section 246 CrPC and subsequently, PW2 Jaipal Singh and PW3 Sajjan Singh were got examined. 5. After the prosecution evidence was got closed, the same was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC on 23.4.1999, in reply to which, he pleaded that the evidence against him is false. In defence, DW1 Amar Singh was got examined. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention 3 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After hearing on sentence, the accused Mohamad Yasin was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of rupees one thousand. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 15.10.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 958 of 1996, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1999 before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge/III-F.T.C., Dehradun. The said court, after hearing the parties, found no illegality in the order passed by the trial court and affirmed the same. 8. It is pleaded on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist was not a milk seller. It is further pleaded that he only intended to obtain license to sell the milk. However, the said defence, which is vague in nature, has already been examined by both the courts below and since there is no illegality in the findings recorded by both the courts below, this Court is no inclined to interfere with the same. 9. As regards to the compliance of the Rules, framed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is concerned, from the statement of PW1 J.S. Jayara (Food Inspector), it is clearly established that every relevant and material rule has been complied with. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. The trial court has awarded the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence. 4 10. For the reasons as discussed above, this revision has no force. The same is dismissed. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4.1.2011 PRABODH