ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted on the allegation of violation of provisions of Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act') and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide judgment of conviction dated 18.5.2005 and order of sentence dated 25.5.2005. Aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence were challenged by the petitioner by way of Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2005, which after contest, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 15.2.2007.

(2.) TO challenge the sustainability of the judgments and order of the courts below, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the 'Cr.P.C.') by way of this revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel representing the petitioner has, in the first instance, argued that vide report (Exhibit -PD) of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Karnal, the colour found in the sample of "Dal" was said to be permitted Synthetic Food colour Tartrazine but the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune, has given a different opinion vide its report (Exhibit -PF) but no reasons are coming forth for these two contradictory reports. The contention, however, is not tenable, for, the report (Exhibit -PF) of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, is outcome of an application made by the petitioner for analysis of second part of the sample and it is settled by now that report of Director, Central Food Laboratory, has to prevail upon the report of the Public Analyst.