STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Punjab directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated 18.2.1993. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order of sentence, the learned trial Court held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but released the respondent on probation of good conduct. Respondent was directed to furnish personal bond to a sum of Rs. 300/- with a surety of like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. He was burdened with Rs. 1000/- as costs of litigation.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 2.6.1986, Dr. Vijay Kumar alongwith Dr. Balbir Chand inspected the premises of the respondent. He was found having in his possession 144 bottles of sweetened carbonated water for human consumption. Dr. Vijay Kumar disclosed his identity as Food Inspector. A demand was made for taking a sample of sweetened carbonated water by serving a notice in writing on the respondent. The notice was attested by the respondent and the witnesses. 6 bottles of 300 mls. each of sweetened carbonated water were taken against the receipt which was attested by the respondent. The six bottles were divided into three packets. Each packet was labelled and wrapped in a strong thick khaki paper. A paper slip having code and serial number duly signed was pasted with gum on each packet. Each packet was sealed with six distinct seals with a seal under impression of "V.K." Each packet was signed by the Food Inspector as well as by the respondent, in such a manner that the signatures covered the slip as well as the paper. One sealed packet of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab through Jeet Ram. A copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal was also sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab through the same messenger. The counter- part of two packets were deposited on the same day. Ram Lal had also joined as an independent witness in all these proceedings.

(3.) AFTER appraisal of the evidence on the record, learned trial Court held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereupon passed the impugned order releasing the respondent on probation of good conduct mentioned above.