SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURESH Kumar, revision-petitioner was tried by Sh. N. C. Nahata, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad on the basis of a complaint filed by Govt. Food Inspector R. R. Jindal for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After trial, he was convicted for that offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- of in default thereof further RI for 4 mouth. An appeal preferred by him was heard by Sh. S. D. Arora, Addl. Sessions Judge, Hissar who dismissed the same. Having felt aggrieved by both these orders, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution law may be briefly stated

(3.) SH . D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, urged that the sample was not properly drawn by the Govt. Food Inspector. For taking a representative sample, it was essential for the Govt. Food Inspector to have thoroughly stirred the entire bulk from which the sample was to be drawn. However, this process was not carried out. I find force in this contention of the learned counsel. In the complaint Ex. PF, as well as the memo for purchasing the sample Ex. PC, no reference is made to the strirring of the bulk quantity. When Dr. O. P. Sarwal was cross-examined, he deposed that only an upper layer of the oil was stirred. This statement of the doctor definitely contradicts the statement of the Govt. Food Inspector that the bulk quantity had been properly stirred and made homogeneous before drawing the sample. It was probably for this reason that when the sample was analysed by the public Analyst, there was only a minor variation of 2% in the-fatty acid and when the second sample was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, after a lapse of some time, there was further variation. There might have been some change in the meantime. Leaving the aspect of the case aside, the fact remains that the sample was not properly drawn. On this score, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of doubt.