SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of conviction passed by the Courts below under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The main argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner (which is not denied by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana) is that even though the Petitioner made an application for checking of sample by Central Food Laboratory within time prescribed i.e.10 days, yet, the sample was sent only after a lapse of 4 or 5 months, whereas, as per the statute it had to be sent within 5 days. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh,1992 AC 239, wherein a Division Bench held as follows:

(3.) As per learned Counsel for the Petitioner, his case is completely covered by this judgment. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has very fairly stated that she has not been able to lay her hands on any contrary judgment. In the circumstance, the benefit of delay has to go to the Petitioner as was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.