LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-324

PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On December 12, 2011
PAWAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order rejecting his appeal, whereby his conviction and sentence of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") has been maintained.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.2008 at 8 A.M., Government Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and found in his possession 12 bottles of McDonald Club Soda in a container. He demanded a sample by giving him a notice in writing. He purchased the sample of 500 Ml. X 6 by making payment of Rs.60/- for the purpose of analysis. After taking the sample, he divided the same in three equal parts and put in three empty bottles, which were stoppered, labelled, wrapped with a strong thick paper. The paper slips issued by the Local Health Authority, Fatehabad bearing Code NO.FTD-DH./F1-1 Sr.No.324 were affixed on the bottles from top to bottom with gum, which was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with seal of Food Inspector and the Medical Officer. Signatures of the petitioner were also obtained on both the paper slips. After completing all the formalities and keeping the two remaining samples intact, the Soda was sent for analysis. As per the report, it was found bacteliogically unfit for human consumption as it given 31 coliform count/100 ml. 4 yeast and mould count/ml and 140 total plate count/ml against the specified limits of nil, 2 & 50 respectively as laid down for Carbonated water under item NO.A.01.01 of the PFA Rules, 1955. Twenty Batch number is not mentioned on the label and manufacturing date is also not clearly visible as required under clauses (e) and (f) of Rule 32 of the PFA Rules, 1955. On this basis, the petitioner was prosecuted and lateron, on the basis of evidence led, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission on merits. He, however, pleads for leniency.