RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Ramesh Chand has filed this criminal revision against the judgments, passed by both the Courts below, vide which he has been convicted under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

(2.) On 27-9-1988, a sample of Tata salt was drawn from the shop of the petitioner by the Food Inspector. As per the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal, dated 5-10- 1988 (Ex. PF), the said sample was not containing the minimum prescribed limit of Iodine. Vide notification dated 9-12-1987, issued by the Govt. of Haryana, the sale of common salt other than iodised salt was prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority. Haryana. In view of the said notification, the sample of Tata salt taken from the premises of the petitioner was found to be adulterated.

(3.) Subsequently, on 15-11-1988. Local Health Authority sent a letter (Ex. P.W. 3/A) to the petitioner along with report of the Public Analyst, intimating him that a complaint has been instituted by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 7-11-1988, in which the next date is 11-1-1989. The said intimation was issued in compliance of S. 13(2) of the Act and R. 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which requires that the Local Health Authority, within a period often days of institution of the prosecution, shall forward a copy of the result of the analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of R. 7 by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector.