PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/9/2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, wherein he was convicted under Sec. 16(1A)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500.00, along with the default mechanism.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 195, wherein it is alleged that on 13/7/2007 at about 08:50 PM, during a raid conducted by a team comprising Dr. Ranjit Singh, Medical Officer-cum-Food Inspector, Dr. Satnam Singh, Dr. Daljit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, and Peon Sher Singh from the office of the Local Health Authority, Patiala, the petitioner, Prem Kumar, was found in possession of 17 sealed glass bottles of "Lehar Pepsi," each containing 250 ml, which were intended for sale and human consumption. Upon disclosing their identity, the raiding team purchased six sealed bottles from the petitioner for Rs.24.00. The petitioner was served with a notice in Form VI for the analysis of the samples, which were separately sealed in accordance with the prescribed rules. A spot memo, along with necessary documentation such as sample marking, was prepared at the spot. The samples were sealed with an impression marked "RS/22/07" and were subsequently sent to the office of the Local Health Authority, Patiala, and to the office of the Public Analyst, Chandigarh. Upon receipt of the analysis reports and after serving copies thereof on the accused, and upon completion of all other requisite formalities of the investigation, a complaint was filed before the Court against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that he does not challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 30/9/2011 on merits but restricts his prayer to the extent that the petitioner be granted the benefit of probation. He further contends that earlier in terms of Sec. 20-A of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the probation of the offenders under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was completely forbidden, however, the earlier Act was repealed and new Act was implemented in the year 2007 and the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner in the year 2007. The alleged offence was committed on 13/7/2007, as such the petitioner be released on probation because the provisions of the Act of 2007 would apply in the present case. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Nagarajan and another vs The Stale of Tamil Nadu', passed in Criminal Appeal No.1390 of 2025, decided on 15/5/2025, Lastly, he submits that the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 03 months and 22 days out of 01 year RI and he is not involved in any other case.