STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RADHEY SHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RADHEY Sham son of Suraj Bhan accused-respondent was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alongwith one Tara Chand by Shri R.C. Kathuria, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. He was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Tara Chand was given benefit of probation for one year on his entering into a personal bond. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Radhey Sham filed an appeal against the judgment dated 1-11-1979 by Shri R.C. Kathuria. His appeal was accepted by Shri Krishan Kant Aggarwal. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat as per judgment dated 19-12-1981 which has now been assailed by the State of Haryana in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the respondent was that on 6-10-1976, Balwan Singh, Food Inspector accompanied by Lakhi Ram and Dr. Satish Gusain visited the shop of the respondent situated in village Murthal. Tara Chand who represented himself to be an employee of Radhey Sham was present at the shop and 20 kilograms of 'ajwain' was found lying in the shop which was kept for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of 'ajwain' on payment of Rs. 1.80 to Tara Chand. This 'ajwain' was divided into three parts and was put into three bottles which were duly wrapped, labelled and scaled under the rules. One of the scaled bottles was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana through Shri Satbir Singh, Peon, along with memorandum or seal used in scaling the sample. On analysis, the sample or 'ajwain' was found to be infested with insects and it also contained 5.2% organic extraneous matter and 2.9% inorganic extraneous matter against the maximum prescribed standard of 3% and 2% respectively. A report to that effect was received and a copy of the same was sent to the respondent and Tara Chand by registered post.

(3.) THE learned lower appellate Court found that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act by the Local Health Authority. This fact was also not proved by credible evidence that the respondent was the owner of the shop from where the sample was taken.