DURLAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge Sangrur, dated Feb. 22, 1983, affirming the convictions-aid sentence of the petitioner Under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) for storing 300 bottles of adulterated sweetened carbonated water for public sale.

(2.) ON 28 the April, 1981, N. C. Goel, Govt. Food Inspector, along with Dr. Parveen Kumar, visited the shop of the accused-petitioner at Sangrur and purchased 9 bottles of sweetened carbonated water from him for analysis on payment of Rs. 9/- against receipt Ex. PB. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated as it contained sucrose to the extent of 2. 53% instead of 5% minimum and saccharine to the extent of 100. 0 ppm and there was also violation of Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules ). Second sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad for analysis who, vide his report Ex. PK, found that the sample did not conform to the standard of sweetened carbonated water as laid down in item No. 1. 01. 01 of Appendix B of the Rules and the presence of saccharine was in excess of the prescribed limit of 100 ppm.

(3.) THE case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeached testimony of N. C. Goel, Govt. Food Inspector and Dr. Parveen Kumar. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence.