KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of both the aforementioned criminal revisions.

(2.) A complaint for adulteration in barfi was filed against the petitioner Dalip Singh. In the trial, petitioner Kartar Singh appeared as a defence witness and stated that the shop belonged to him. He was also, therefore, added as an accused and the trial was conducted against both the petitioners de novo by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Both the petitioners were found to be guilty of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having barfi item which was adulterated for sale. They filed appeals against the said conviction and judgment. Both the appeals were dismissed and hence they have filed these revision petitions. None has appeared for the petitioners and I have heard Mr. Chetan Dass, learned District Attorney of the State.

(3.) HOWEVER , it can be seen that in the appeal memo, the petitioners have relied on the case of Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1986(II) F.A.C. 158, in which this Court has followed the earlier judgment in the case of Maya Ram v. State of Punjab, Crl. Rev. No. 705 of 1981 decided on 15.7.1983. Reliance on this judgment has been made because as per the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD in the trail Court, the sample was also coloured with unpermitted blue V.R.S. coal tar dye. It is mentioned that the sample contained permitted colour tartrazine and unpermitted blue V.R.S. coal tar dye. The test for examining the sample was a test for colour by paper chromatography, as per report Ex.PD.