KANSHI NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 17.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment dated 29.10.1990 and order on sentence dated 31.10.1990 was dismissed. By the judgment dated 29.10.1990, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, had convicted the petitioner for violation of Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act') which is punishable under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced on 31.10.1990 by the said Metropolitan Magistrate to undergo six months RI and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- was also imposed on him.

(2.) It is alleged that on 9.11.1987, Food Inspector S.K. Nagpal, took a sample of Dhania powder from the petitioner Kanshi Nath who was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Kanshi Nath Motilal at 6549C, Khari Baoli, Delhi. It is the case of the complainant that the sample was divided into three equal parts after homogenising it and that the process of mixing, sealing, fastening and packing, etc. was carried out in accordance with the provisions of PFA Act and Rules made thereunder. One of the counterparts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst dated 17.11.1987 disclosed the result of the analysis as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_413_DLT124_2005Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the Public Analyst was of the opinion that the sample of Dhania powder was adulterated because "total ash exceeds the prescribed maximum limit of 7.0%". As the petitioner had desired to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory invoking the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act, the same was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for analysis. Certificate No.l50/PFA/88 issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore 27.05.1988 indicated the test results as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_413_DLT124_2005Html2.htm</FRM> In view of the aforesaid test results, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was of the following opinion: