He also said that numberstandard of quality was prescribed by therules framed under the Act for Shakkar, that as an article of food, Shakkar was neither gur number Jaggery and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food Inspector by the appellant was under duress and was number a sale in the eye of the law.
He said that the appellant was mixing extraneous matter with the Shakkar for companyverting it into Rab and as such it cannotbe said that the Shakkar was stored for sale by the appellant.
He divided the sample into three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other two with him.
He happened to companye to the Chakki of one Abdul Razaaq.
The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Sessions Judge.
There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers mixing Shelkhari in it with spades.
The Analyst found, in his report dated July 11, 1963, that the Shakkar companytained 2.4 moisture, 72.7 total sugar, 64.7 sucrose, 17 extraneous matter insoluble in water.
The Sanitary Inspector accompanied by the Food Inspector proceeded to the Chakki and there, they found the labourers mixing Shelkhari with Shakkar.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated April 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt.
On June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was on patrol duty.
The plea was accepted by the District Magistrate and the respondents were acquitted.
He went to the police station to inform the Station Officer about it but the Station Officer was number there.
The stock of Shakkar belonged to the appellant.
13 of 1965 and Criminal Govt.
On the basis of a companyplaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, the Magistrate who tried the ap pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act came to the companyclusion that the appellant had stored the Shakkar for sale, that it was adulterated and that he was guilty of the offence and companyvicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
The Municipal Board filed an appeal against the order to the High Court.
He then met the Sanitary Inspector and informed him about what he, saw at the Chakki.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
10 of 1966.
One of the samples retained was sent to the Public Analyst for examination.
Appeal No.
Appeal No.
1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, after reversing the order passed by the Sessions Judge in appeal acquitting him of the offence.
The Food Inspector purchased 1 1/2 seers of Shakkar from the appellant by way of sample after paying its price.
According to him the extraneous matter insoluble in water, total ash and ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid exceeded by 15,O, 10.1 and 13.3 respectively as against the maximum prescribed standards of 2.0, 6.0 and O.5 respectively.
253 of 1968.
P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew, J. This appeal , by special leave, is against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored the order of the Magistrate companyvicting the appellant of an offence under section 16 read with section 7.
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Act 37 of 1954 , hereinafter called the Act, and sentencing him to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.
P. Maheshwari and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant.
