VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Vijay Kumar a Karyana shopkeeper of Mukerian against the concurrent decision of two Courts below, as per which the petitioner was convicted under section 7 read with section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to three months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on February 19,1982 at about 1 p.m., Shri Harbhajan Singh Saini, Government Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner along with Dr. Har Parkash Bhatia. Thirty-one closed polythene packets of edible common salt were lying in the shop for sale beside other articles of food. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity obtained three close packets of edible common salt from the petitioner by way of sample on payment of their price. The bags were labelled and were wrapped in strong thick papers. Paper-slips were placed on these samples which were duly signed. The binding thread was thereafter sealed with seal impression of H.S. Saini. One of the sealed samples was forwarded to the Public Analyst on February 19, 1982 through an Office Peon and the remaining two parts of the sample were kept in depot with the Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur. As per report of the Public Analyst, the sample conformed to the standards prescribed for common salt but did not contain iodine as required under the law. The sale of non-iodised salt being prohibited in the District of Hoshiarpur, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner, as a result of which he was convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

(3.) IT may be observed here that the sample in question was taken on as far back as February 19, 1982, and the prosecution was launched against the petitioner on May 11, 1982. The petitioner has undergone the agony of prosecution at the trial stage as well as at the appellate stage for about 2-1/2 years by now. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to order his re-trial.