LAWS(DLH)-1971-11-31

NAND LAL Vs. STATE

Decided On November 15, 1971
NAND LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two short questions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of fine he has been awarded further simple imprisonment for three months for an offence under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. His appeal having been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, he has come up in revision to this court.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the petitioner runs a sweets shop under the name and style of "M/s Nand Lal Hari Chand" at shop No. 10, 114, Rani Jhansi Road, Opposite Filmistan Cinema, Delhi in partnership with his brother Hari Chand. On 20.10.1968 at about 2.30 P.M. Shri Nand Kishore Food Inspector visited the aforesaid shop and found the petitioner Nind Lal selling sweets. After disclosing his identity to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 1500 grams of Burfi' prepared with Khoya sugar, coconut and edible colour as sample for analysis on payment of Rs. 15.00 as price thereof vide receipt Ex. P.A. Notice was duly served on the petitioner and the sample of Burfi' was then divided into three equal parts and filed into three dry and clean bottles which were duly seal d as per rules. The Food Inspector prepared an inventory (Ex. PC) on the spot which was read over and explained to the petitioner who thumb marked the same. The inventory was also attested by the witnesses in whose presence the sample in question was lifted. The Food Inspector then handed over one sample bottle to the petitioner, delivered the second bottle to the Public Analyst on 23.10.1968 personally along with a memo in Form VII and retained the third sample bottle with himself.

(3.) On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, saying the sample Burfi' to be adulterated, he submitted his report Ex. PF to the Prosecution Branch of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and a complaint was instituted against the petitioner, his brother Hari Chand and the firm M/s Nand Lal Hari Chand for the said offence.