DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision Dharam Pal petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act (for short, the Act).The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Pathankot, sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500. He also convicted his co-accused Raj Pal under the said offence and sentenced him to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner but acquitted Raj Pal of the charge due to the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner has also filed Crl. Misc. No. 2544 of 1983 seeking permission to place on record certain copies of documents by way of additional evidence, which was ordered to be heard with the main revision petition.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on 3.7.1978 Dr. R.S. Pannu, Government Food Inspector, went to the shop of Raj Pal, the acquitted accused, situated Dhangu Road, Pathankot and purchased 3 sealed packets of Hindustan Iodized salt, each weighing 900 grams on payment of Rs. 2.50 P. as price vide receipt, Exhibit P.B., as sample for analysis. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to certain no Iodine, either as Iodide or as Iodate and thus infringed the Notification No. D (3)-Pb-76/5290 dated 20.7.1978 issued by the Punjab State Health Food Authority.

(3.) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision is that there is non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, which are mandatory and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and that the petitioner should have been acquitted. Reliance is placed on a decision in P.K. Moorthy v. Food Inspector Kumbakonam Municipality, 1980 Cril. LJ 51. I find substance in his submission, sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under :-