STATE OF H P Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh calls in question legality of judgment rendered by learned single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court affirming judgment of the trial Court holding that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused No. 1) was not guilty of the accusations under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act').

(2.) The prosecution version which led to trial of the accused is essentially as follows :

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of the witnesses has not been properly analysed by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Public Analyst in his certificate has categorically stated that the seals and the memo received separately were intact and there was no defect therein. It was submitted that at any rate no prejudice has been caused and shown by the accused. It was urged that when the Public Analyst was satisfied about due despatch of the articles and there was not even any suggestion about any prejudice caused or that the report of the Public Analyst did not reflect the correct state of affairs, the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court cannot be maintained.