MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The appellant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdadhari along with first accused-Naresh Kumar and he was found guilty of the charge against him. The trial Magistrate acquitted the first accused-Naresh Kumar and the present appellant was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed in-limine.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 24-2-1988 P.W. 1 Food Inspector of Chhachhruali along with Doctor working in the local authority visited the shop of 1st accused-Naresh Kumar and purchased 3 packets of Iodized Tata Salt. He prepared samples in accordance with law and sent the same for examination by the Public Analyst. Report of the analyst indicated that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed as it did not contain iodine. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the first accused was informed of the result. Thereafter, first accused filed application for sending remaining sample for the examination by the Central Food Laboratory. The report from the Central Food Laboratory also disclosed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules as it contained only 5.0 ppm of iodine as against the required quantity of 15.0 ppm of iodine. The Food Inspector launched prosecution against the first accused. At the time of purchase he had served the first accused with Form VI notice and in the notice it was indicated that Iodized Tata Salt purchased from M/s. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor Marketing, Maharaja Agarsen Marg, Yamuna Nagar (Ambala) against Bill No. 4987 dated 27-1-1988. But Food Inspector did not implead original vendor as an accused. During the course of the trial, first accused-Naresh Kumar filed application under S. 14-A of the Food Adulteration Act and furnished the address and other particulars of the present appellant. The appellant herein was thus impleaded as the second accused.

(3.) On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 the Food Inspector and P.W. 2 Doctor, who accompanied the P.W. 1 were examined. During the course of the cross-examination of P.W. 1, the Bill No. 4987 allegedly issued by M/s. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor Chand was marked as Ex. PA. The report of the local authority as well as the report of Central Food Laboratory showed that the sample did not contain the required quantity of Iodine.