NARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARINDER Kumar had been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari for an offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months.

(2.) IN brief, case of prosecution is that on 23. 3. 1984 at 5. 15 p. m. , Food Inspector C. L. Sikkri PW. 2 along with Dr. H. R. Goshal, pw1, inspected the premises of petitioner situated in the area of Workshop Road, yamuna Nagar. From a small bag, 750 grams of salt was purchased. Samples of the same were drawn in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who opined that there was contravention of notification of Food Health Authority and, therefore, sample was adulterated. The appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed and the sentence was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine was maintained.

(3.) MR. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that the authorities had found that iodine was not mixed in the salt, therefore, there was a violation of notification issued by the Authorities. Mr. Gupta in view of this has stated that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the petitioner as two courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of an offence. Mr. Gupta has straightway made a submission that since in the present revision petition occurrence pertains to year 1984, petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 24 years. He has further stated that the petitioner was having a Juice bar near the workshop, therefore, the salt was to be used in the Juice sold to the consumers and petitioner was not a seller of salt. He has further stated that petitioner was a small time petty juice vendor. He has further stated that in the last 24 years, the petitioner has not committed any such offence.