VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Vijay Kumar (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra dated 1.6.1987 and the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dated 17.5.1988. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.8.1985 Moti Ram Sharma, Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Hari Ram Gutain visited the shop of the petitioner at Ladwa. The petitioner was found in possession of 10 kilograms of Besan. It had been kept in a bag for sale besides other food articles. The Food Inspector disclosed his identify to the petitioner and told him that he wants to take the sample of basan. Harish Sachdeva was joined as a witness by the Food Inspector 600 grams of Besan was purchased. Rs. 3/- were paid vide a receipt. Before taking the sample the Besan was thoroughly mixed. It was divided into three equal parts. It was put into three dry and clean bottles which were stoppered and labelled. They were wrapped in a thick khaki paper and were sealed with the seal of Food Inspector and Dr. Hari Ram Gutain. One slip of Local Health Authority was pasted on each sample bottle. The signatures of the accused-petitioner were obtained on the same. One sealed sample bottle with copy of memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. The remaining two samples and two copies of Form VII were deposited with the Local Heath Authority. One copy of Form VII bearing the expression (impression ?) of seal used in sealing the sample bottles was sent by registered post. The Public Analyst opined that it contained 18 living meal worms and one living weevil. On these broad facts, the complaint was filed.

(3.) A plea had been taken in the grounds of revision that the sample was tested on the third day and, therefore, the meal worms and weevils were present. The said contention in the facts of the present case is devoid of any merit. If there was inordinate delay, such a plea could be offered. In the present case the sample was taken on 11.8.1985. It was received in the Laboratory on 13.8.1985 and analysis was conducted on 14.8.1985. There was no inordinate delay which may prompt the Court to conclude that meal worms could have developed.