BINOD SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is a convict for commission of an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As a consequence of the judgment of the conviction dated 8th June, 2011, as rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 138 of 2006, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vinod Singh Bhandari, the revisionist has been convicted and thus directed to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 7 to be read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to be read with Rule 62 of the Rules as framed under the Act and a fine of Rs.1,000/- has been imposed and in an event of failure to deposit fine, as imposed, he has been further directed to undergo additional 10 days' of simple imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction was challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2011, Binod Singh Bhandari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and the judgment of conviction dated 8th June, 2011 has been affirmed with dismissal of Criminal Appeal by the judgment dated 23rd August, 2012, which has been put to challenge in the present Criminal Revision.

(2.) At the time of hearing on admission of the Criminal Revision, the revisionist has been granted bail on 29th August, 2012. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as far as the accusation made against the revisionist is concerned, the product, which was allegedly found to be in possession of the revisionist is Guttka and 58 pouches of sample of the said article were collected and sent to the public analyst for its analyst examination, who has submitted his report and had reported therein that the product on its chemical examination was found to contain gambier and magnesium carbonate, which the analyst submits that it was not within the permissible limit of chemical, which is otherwise permitted to be carried in food product and, hence, the revisionist submits that the said limit of chemical composition being that of 2%, happens to be in consonance to the provisions contained under Rule 62 of the Rules as framed under the Act, which provides that 2% would be the combination of magnesium carbonate or gambier, which would be permitted in a food product or article.

(3.) Whereas, on the contrary, if the reference as made to Appendix-B of Rule A-30 of the Act is considered, it provides that in relation to the food products, which was specified therein, it only contemplates inclusion of pan masala and gutka is not covered by it. Appendix-B of Rule A-30 is quoted hereunder :-