VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner were that on 29th February, 1980, Dr. H.S. Dhillon along with Dr. Amarjit Singh went to the shop of Messrs Krishan Dairy, Court Road, Bhatinda for taking a sample of food and the petitioner in this case was found present at the shop of which Nasib Chand Mittal is the owner. The petitioner was found in possession of 10 kgs. of desi ghee for sale. Dr. H. S. Dhillon, as Food Inspector, served notice in form IV, Exhibit P.A., showing his intention to purchase the sample of desi ghee. 450 grams of desi ghee out of the lot was purchased from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 11.70 as its price and the petitioner issued a receipt Exhibit PB thereof. The sample was divided into three equal parts which were transferred into three dry and clean bottles. All the bottles were stoppend, securely fastened, labelled and then wrapped in strong thick papers Slips of local Health Authority bearing No. 678 were affixed on the wrapper of each bottle. The bottles were secured with strong twine, sealed and taken into possession under the rules. Signatures of the petitioner were obtained in such a way that the signatures appeared partly slips. Specimen impression of the seal Exhibit P.C. was prepared and the Food Inspector prepared spot memo, Exhibit P.D. Exhibits P.A., P.B. P.C. and P.D. were attested by the petitioner and Dr. Amarjit Singh and they also signed on the bottles. One of the bottles along with form VII duly sealed along with impression of the seal, in a sealed cover, were sent to the Public Analyst, Jalandhar, for analysis. Another copy of form VII duly filled and the sample impression of the seal, in a separate cover, was also sent to the Public Analyst. Remaining two parts of the sample were deposited with the local health authority along with from VII duly filled. Vide his report Exhibit P.E., the Public Analyst informed that resehest value of sample ghee was less than minimum. prescribed standard and was, therefore, adulterated. The petitioner was summoned and on his appearance, Dr. H. S. Dhillon appeared as P.W.1 to support the complaint in its detail. Buta Singh, P.W.2 Despatch Clerk, was examined to say that on receipt or Public Analyst's report, one copy along with requisite intimation was sent to the petitioner about the launching of prosecution against him and that he could send second sample of desi ghee to the Central Food Laboratory within 10 days thereof. This intimation was despatched, according to P.W.2. on 25th July, 1980 and then one set was sent again to him on 12th September, 1980 by registered post but both the envelopes were received back as undelivered with the report that the addressee was not available. After considering the statements of Dr. H. S. Dhillon P.W. 1 and Buta Singh P.W.2, the trial Court framed charge against the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed trial. After framing of the charge; Dr. H. S. Dhillon was further, cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner has come up in this revision challenging the orders of both the courts below.