HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-petitioner under the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the case of the prosecution, the Food Inspector Patiala inspected the shop of the accused-petitioner on April 23, 1987, situated at the Railway Station Patiala and the petitioner kept Bislary Club Soda water for sale. The Food Inspector purchased nine bottles of Bislary Soda Water from the accused- petitioner and he kept three bottles each separately and sent three bottles for analysis to the Public Analyst. The remaining bottles were separated into two lots of three bottles each and were deposited in Court. The Public Analyst found that the samples sent to him contained superseded matter in large quantity and also coliform bacteria in large quantity and therefore, the sample was unfit for human consumption. After receipt of the report from the Public Analyst the Food Inspector filed charge-sheet against the accused petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses and marked documents. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No. 8/14.8.1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala remanded the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. afresh and to give an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present revision petition in this Court.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample was not obtained by the Food Inspector in accordance with law. According to the complaint and evidence of the Food Inspector, he purchased nine bottles of Bislary Soda Water and divided the bottles into three lots and sent one lot of three bottles to the Public Analyst for his report. The remaining six bottles were separately sealed into two samples of three bottles each. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused is entitled to have an order of acquittal in his favour and that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in remanding the matter should be set aside and he should have acquitted the accused. The point that arises for consideration is whether the sample was taken in accordance with law. There is no dispute of the fact that the Food Inspector purchased nine bottles of Bislary Soda Water from the accused. He kept only three bottles for Public Analyst while keeping the other bottles into two separate lots of three bottles each. The question is whether this satisfies the requirement of law. I am of the opinion that the samples have not been taken by the Food Inspector in accordance with law. In this context it is useful to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Daulat Ram, 1991(3) RCR 428. The facts of this case are similar to the facts in the reported case. It has been held in the edition as follows :

(3.) THE above quoted edition has also been followed by this Court in Vinod Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1980(2) FAC 378. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the Food Inspector has not taken the sample in accordance with law and therefore, the revision petition is to be allowed. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala and the order of remanding passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Petition allowed.