LAWS(P&H)-1985-8-38

KRISHAN CHAND Vs. TATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 13, 1985
KRISHAN CHAND Appellant
V/S
Tate Of Haryana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated July 25, 1984, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1983 confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Panipat, on August 6, 1982 in Criminal Case No. 203/3 of 1981. The accused-petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

(2.) THE prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On 16th June, 1978, S.L. Anand Government Food Inspector, Panipat, accompanied by Dr. C.P. Singh and Sardari Lal, was present near the Model Town, Panipat. The Food Inspector purchased sample of milk from the petitioner for analysis and when one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, he found the same to be adulterated. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that Rule 18 of the Rules has been complied with in this case because the report of the Public Analyst shows that the specimen impression of the seal which was affixed on the bottle of the sample had been sent separately by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst has clearly mentioned in his report Ex. PD that the sample of the milk sent to him for analysis was properly sealed and fastened that he found the seal intact and the seal contained on the container of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent to the Public Analyst and the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. This report of the Public Analyst is the conclusive evidence of the fact that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provision of Rule 18 of the Rules.