VISHNU SWARUP Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of Shri K..B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing an appeal against the judgment dated 21st December, 1984 of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000.00 in default of payment of which, to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.

(2.) The petitioner is running a kiryana shop under the name and style of M/s. Vishnu Karyana Store at 1435, Ganeshpura, Tri Nagar, Delhi. His godown is located nearby in premises No. 1433/98, where he used to store spices etc. According to the respondent on 26th May 1980 at about 3.30 p.m. P.K. Vats, Food Inspector lifted sample of chillies powder from the shop of the petitioner and the same was sent for analysis. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated. Notice was sent to the petitioner under Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner filed an application on 21st July 1981 praying that he wanted to exercise his right under Section 13(2) of the Act for getting the counter part of the sample analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory. That application came up for hearing on 31st July 1981 and on that day, the said sample was produced in the court. The petitioner made statement that he did not want to exercise his right under Section 13(2) of the Act and consequently the application was dismissed and counter part of the sample was not sent to the Director for analysis. On 7th August 1981 the petitioner moved another application praying that the counter part of the sample be got analysed from the Director of Central Food Laboratory. That application was rejected on the ground that previous such application was withdrawn. The rejection order was passed on 4th September 1981.

(3.) The case of the petitioner was that he was not prelent when the sample was taken, that the sample was not taken from his shop but from another shop in occupation of another person and that, therefore, he was not responsible in respect of the adulteration of the sample so taken.