RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24th July, 1981 Shri Amar Nath Gupta. Government Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Ram Sarup Petitioner and found him in possession of 5 kilograms of Chilli powder, for public sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and giving a notice in writing to the petitioner purchased 450 grams of chilli powder for analysis on payment of Rs. 4.95. The chilli powder so purchased was divided into three parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles after observing necessary formalities. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the other two bottles were deposited with Local Health Authority, Bhiwani. The Public Analyst submitted his report Ex. PD according to which chilli powder was found to contain two living meal worms. The petitioner was then prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment recording his conviction was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and the conviction of the petitioner was maintained. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 30-4-1986.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mahesh Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri P. S. Sullar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and have perused the record.

(3.) IN the present case though the petitioner was told that the Public Analyst had submitted his report Ex. PD whereby his sample was found to be adulterated but the other contents of the report were not put to him so as to give him a chance to explain the presence of meal worms in the sample. This opportunity to explain was denied to the petitioner as he was not put the report of the Public Analyst specifically and the contents thereof with regard to the extent of adulteration. As such the conviction of the petitioner was liable to be set aside on this ground alone.