I hereby certify that I, Dr. R.S. Srivastava, Public Analyst for Uttar Pradesh, duly appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, received on the 4th day of June 1963 from the Food Inspector c o Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Saharanpur, a sample of companyoured sweet Patisa prepared in Vanaspati No.
Melting point 33.80C. Baudouins test for the presence of Til oil Positive.
The judgment of the High Court was rendered on April 18, 1966.
On suspicion that the sweets sold by him were adulterated, the Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Saharanpur purchased from the accused for examination some companyoured sweets under a Yaddasht on May 31, 1963 and sent a portion if the same to the Public Analyst of the Government of U.P. for examination.
It is purported to have been filed by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur but it was signed by its Food Inspector.
On the basis of that certificate, a companyplaint was filed in the companyrt of City Magistrate, Saharanpur under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Thereafter this appeal was brought after obtaining special leave.
The accused pleaded number guilty.
It further came to the companyclusion that it had numberpower to review its own judgment.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 18, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Among other things, he was selling companyoured sweets.
Coal tar dye identified Metanil yellow.
I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows Test for the presence of companyl tar dye Positive.
100/ , in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one, month.
134 of the Constitution was also refused by a separate order of the same date.
It reads See Rule 7 3 REPORT BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST Report No.
122 of 1967.
The High Court companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
134 of the Constitution for certificate was still pending, the accused moved the High Court under s. 561 A , Cr.
P.C. for reviewing its judgment dated April 18, 1966 principally on the ground that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board was number maintainable under s. 417 3 , Cr.
The Public Analyst submitted his report on June 24, 1963.
11652.
The application under s. 561 A was dismissed by the High Court as per its order of March 16, 1967 repelling the companytention of the accused that the companyplaint had number been instituted by the Municipal Board.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On April 28, 1966, the accused field an application for certificate under Art.
On May 4, 1966, when the application filed under Art.
P. Rana, for respondent No.
138 ANALYTICAL DATA IN RESPECT OF FAT OR OIL USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLE.
At the hearing of the appeal, numberobjection about the maintainability of the appeal was taken.
The material facts relating to this appeal are these The accused in this case is proprietor of Khalsa Tea Stall situated in Court Road, Saharanpur.
1642 of 1964.
C. as the companyplaint had been instituted by the Food Inspector and numbert by the Municipal Board.
companyour Index No.
The High Court rejected both these companytentions.
K. Garg, S.C.Agarwal, Sumitra Chakravarty and Uma Dutt, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J. Two companytentions advanced in this appeal by special leave are 1 that the appeal filed by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur before the High Court of Allahabad under s. 417 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code was number maintainable in law and 2 the accused companyld number have been companyvicted on the strength of the certificate of the Public Analyst annexed to the companyplaint.
The certificate prayed for under Art.
and to pay a fine of Rs.
134 of the Constitution.
Butyro refractometer reading at 40 dgree C 50.5.
264 for analysis, properly sealed and fastened and that I found the seal intact and unbroken.
