AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision Amar Nath petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a file of Rs. 1000/ - appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. upheld his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved he has now come up by way of revision.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on October 10, 1978, Gian Chand, Food Inspector, purchased 600 grams of wheat atta from the premises of Amar Nath petitioner at village Daddu Majra (Union Territory, Chandigarh), for analysis on payment of Rs. 0 -90P. The sample of wheat atta sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 0 192 percent alcoholic acidity against the maximum prescribed standard of' 0 19 percent and hence it was found to be adulterated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Gian Chand, Food Inspector, P.W. 1. and Sardul Singh, PW 2. The petitioner denied the, prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Joginder Singh, Ahmad and Yash Pal were examined by him in defence.

(3.) THE only argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no compliance of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). According to Rule 14 of the Rules, samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case, of dry sub -stance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully scaled.