NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE THROUGH GOVT. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dtd. 6/9/2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and the judgment of conviction dtd. 24/3/2004 and order of sentence dtd. 25/3/2004 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 alongwith default stipulation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Shri Dina Nath Gupta, the then Food Inspector, Narwana alongwith Dr. Om Partap, Medical Officer, CHC Uchana had inspected the premises of accused Naresh Kumar son of Dalip Chand Aggarwal, Karyana Merchant, Krishna Gali, Narwana on 27/12/1996 at 5.45 P.M. while he was in possession of three bags of tea containing 30 kg in each bag for public sale. The Government Food Inspector served notice upon him and purchased 375 grams of tea for Rs.23.00 after stirring and mixing the whole contents properly. He divided it into three equal parts and kept and preserved it as per rules provided under the P.F.A Act. One part of the sample was sent to public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for analysis and the other two sealed bottles were deposited with local Health authority, Narwana. The sample was analyzed by Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, who opined that the sample contains iron fillings 11614 PPM against the maximum limit of 250 PPM. On receiving the report, prosecution was launched against the accused by the Government Food Inspector and he was also served through registered post by the Local Health Authority, Narwana. On notice of complaint, accused/ appellant appeared in the Court and has exercised his right to send the second part of sample for re-analysis from central Food Laboratory, Pune, which was also found to be adulterated as the sample contained total 16370 PPM iron filling and hence, it was opined to be unfit for human consumption.

(3.) After pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.