MAIN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist-Main Pal was found guilty in a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and which findings were upheld by the Appellate Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat through judgment dated 24th May, 2006 and thus having faced ignominy has come in this revision.

(2.) Heard Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG Haryana for the State and perused the records of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to impugn the findings on the grounds that no independent witness has been associated in this recovery and which is controverted by the State. It is not a rule of mandate but is only a precautionary step to prevent misuse of the process. Neither the counsel for the revisionist could show any enmity nor element of vengeance, more so, members of the team have duly supported the prosecution version and, therefore, the same is untenable. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to dispute the identity arguing that initially the accused was named as Seth Pal and subsequently, replaced by Main Pal, has been well controverted on behalf of the State and it is rightly argued that Kali Ram-PW2 has categorically stated before the Court that at the initial point of time when the samples were drawn, the accused has wrongly disclosed his name as Seth Pal and that subsequently, it was disclosed that his real name is Main Pal, rather, clears the aiers about the identity of the accused and is a distressing feature for the defence that the accused is trying to hide his real self by initially making false averments as to his identity. More so, no independent evidence has been led by the accused in support of his identification being to the contrary and rather having been identified in the Court leaves no scope to doubt this aspect of the matter.