SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHAMSHER Singh petitioner has filed the present revision to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 11.12.1992 upholding the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Chief Magistrate, Karnal holding him guilty for violation of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.6.1985, the petitioner was working as a servant in the Halwai shop of Jagdish Chander. On that day, he was approached by Food Inspector A.N. Gandhi, who at that time was accompanied by Dr. Balbir Singh Chaudhary, Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health), Karnal for purchase of Besan Laddus that were lying in the shop for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Laddus on payment of Rs. 6/-. The purchased Laddus were divided into three equal parts, put into three dry and clean bottles, stoppered, labelled and sealed according to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules after two drops of formation per 25 grams had been added to the samples. One of the three sample bottles was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who after analysis opined in his report Ex. PD that the sample was adulterated and contained unpermitted orange acid coltar dye. After receipt of the report, a complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for prosecution of Jagdish Chander and Shamsher Singh.

(3.) BEFORE the appellate Court the conviction of the petitioner was challenged on the ground that there was no proof of the coltar dye having rendered the Besan Laddus unfit for human consumption. This argument was rejected on the ground that it was not permissible to use the coltar dye found present in the same and, therefore, it had to be presumed that the Laddus were adulterated. While doing so, the appellate Court also noticed the fact that the report of the Central Food Laboratory in relation to the second sample, which was sent on the request of the accused conform with the report of the Public Analyst.