SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AROUND 9.00 p.m. on March 31, 1982 inside his shop at Shivpuri, Gurgaon accused Subhash was found having 50 cups weighing sixty grams each of ice cream for sale placed in a freezer. Sample obtained therefrom by the Government Food Inspector H.R. Khanna was on analysis was found to be deficient in milk fat content standard and therefore, reported to be adulterated vide reports Ex. PD and Ex. PF. On prosecution, vide its impugned judgment dated April 27/29, 1985, learned trial Court convicted him of the commission of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Criminal Appeal No. 20/2 of 1985 filed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated April 27/29, 1985 was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court on April 10, 1986. Criminal Revision No. 08 of 1986 has, therefore, been filed by the convicted accused petitioner in this Court.

(2.) I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Sarv-Shri Ajay Aggarwal and B.S. Chawla, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri Arun Nehra, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the respondent State and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

(3.) IN Ex. PD the sample was of green colour while in Ex.PF it was given out to be of yellow colour. Starch was absent from the sample in report Ex. PD while it was 'Trace Positive' in Ex.PF. Difference in the contents of the two reports when perused along with the factum of the third sample having been despatched to the Director without associating the petitioner and without recording his statement of the seals on the sample being intact at the time of despatch (as was done earlier while despatching the second sample) clearly suggests an inference that the third sample was not of the ice cream sample taken from the accused. In this view of the matter, prosecution case set up against the accused is rendered to be of a doubtful nature and suspicious character. Accused Subhash is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.