STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) A complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act was filed by the Government Food Inspector Balwan Singh PW-1 against the respondent on the allegations that on 8.3.1983 at 3 p.m., the Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Bal Ram PW-3 and Surinder Kumar PW, visited the shop of the respondent. The respondent was found in possession of 10 kgs. of barfi sweet for sale in the show case. The Food Inspector served the respondent with notice Exhibit PA and purchased 600 grams of barfi sweet from the respondent, vide receipt Exhibit PB, for the purpose of analysis. the purchased barfi sweet was divided into three equal parts and each of the three parts was separately sealed by the Food Inspector with his seal in accordance with the Rules. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh. The Public Analyst, Haryana, vide his report Exhibited PD, found the sample to be adulterated for the reason that is contained non permitted red basic coal tar dye, whereas no such dye is permitted under the Act to be used in the preparation of barfi sweet. On the receipt of the above report, complaint Exhibit PE was filed against the respondent by the Food Inspector.

(3.) THE statement of the respondent, as envisaged in Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which the respondent denied the allegations of the complainant as a whole and further submitted that his thumb impressions were forcibly taken on papers under the threat that, in case he refused to put his thumb marks on the papers, he would be implicated in some other case. The respondent further submitted that he did not sell any barfi sweet to the Government Food Inspector as he was not indulging in the business of selling sweets, that he had gone to prepare sweets on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of Jeet Singh DW-1 who gave him 5 kgs. of sweets, in which the barfi sweet was also included and the sweet he had kept in his shop was not for sale; that he disclosed this fact to the Food Inspector but he did not pay any heed. The respondent examined Jeet Singh SW-1 who stated that the respondent had gone to prepare sweets at this house on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter that the respondent prepared sweets on 5th, 6th and 7th of March, 1983, and he came back at 12 noon on 8.3.1983; that in total the respondent was given 5 kgs of sweets by him and, in that, one kg. of sweet was of barfi and the remaining stuff was of different sweets.