BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28.9.1982. Y. R. Malhotra, Government Food Inspector seized the sample of food stuff under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act) from the shop of Balwant Singh petitioner. The petitioner was found having in his possession at the shop 41 bottles of sweetened carbonated water fitted with glass ball without labels in two crates for sale to the public. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh. On receipt of the report, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted by Shri H. P Handa, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, remanded the case for a fresh decision. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision against the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala,

(2.) APART from other grounds, the main ground taken by the petitioner, in this revision is that the Food Inspector was not legally competent to seize the sample as has been laid down in A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986/1986(2) Recent CR 569, Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1986 (in S.L.P. No. 701 of 1986) decided on 20th September. by the Supreme Court of India.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Food Inspector was not competent, the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed.