RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This is petition against order dated 9.2.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the present petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that on 2.2.1986, he was having refined groundnut oil for sale out of which samples had been taken and samples sent to the public analyst were found to be adulterated.

(3.) This petitioner faced trial in the Court of CJM, Panipat. Then petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 31.8.1993 and sentenced him. Then petitioner had filed appeal. Vide judgment dated 9.2.2000, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat found that charge should have been framed on the basis of report of Central Food Laboratory and not on the basis of report of the public analyst.