HARCHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide his judgment and order dated 16/25. 11.1981. On appeal, his conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 23.12.1982, Hence this petition against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) IT was urged by Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and the sample was not taken from him and that it was taken from Radha Ram who was declared a proclaimed offender. The Courts below convicted the petitioner on the ground that Radha Ram was his agent and that the petitioner was the owner of the milk. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that the petitioner had reached the spot when the sample was taken and had signed the memo Exhibit PD wherein it was said that Radha Ram was the agent of the petitioner and was selling milk belonging to him. But, in view of principle of law as laid down in C.B. Xavier Cochin v. Food Inspector, Mattancherry Municipality, Mattancherry, 1968 Crl L.J. 348, no conviction can be recorded on the statement of the accused himself as it is hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner's conviction and sentence, as recorded by the Courts below, are set aside. Petition allowed.