PREM PARKASH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.9.1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.1.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh who convicted the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and further in the event of default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are that Shri O.P. Gautam Food Inspector, inspected the premises of the petitioner on 3.6.1992 at about 8.40 A.M. and found him having in his possession about 10 crates of 24 bottles each of S. Carbonated water (Lemon) admixture of sugar and saccharine for sale. The Food Inspector in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, took 1800 mls. i.e. 9 bottles of 200 mls each of sweetened carbonated water. After making the same homogeneous, he divided them into three equal parts and put them in three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. The same were further secured by means of strong twine thread and sealed with four different seals. The signature of the petitioner from whom the sample was taken, was affixed in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of signatures. One sealed bottle of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh along with the prescribed memorandum of Form No. VII in a sealed packet. The Public Analyst sent its report according to which the sample gave total reducing sugar as sucrose 2.6% and saccharine 320 PPM against the minimum and maximum prescribed standard of 5.0% and 100 PPM respectively. Therefore, the sample was not in conformity with the specification and standard laid down under the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and he was ordered to be summoned.

(3.) THE petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea that he was made to sign on blank paper and he had not kept any sweetened carbonated water for sale. Besides, no witness was present at the time of taking sample and that he was innocent. He also stated that he had only one crate with him which was for use of his father who was to take less sugar as he was 75 years old and had been accordingly advised by the doctor. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.