RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13. 3. 2007, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, rohtak, vide which it dismissed the appeal of the revision petitioner, against the judgment of conviction dated 20. 7. 2005, and the order of sentence dated 22. 7. 2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, convicting him, for the offence, punishable under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called as 'the act' only), and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 11. 12. 1996, Mr. M. L. Wadhwa, Government food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. H. O. Manchanda, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Rohtak, inspected the premises of the petitioner at Rohtak. The petitioner was found in possession of 3 kgs. chilly powder, for sale. The Government Food Inspector purchased 450 grams chilly powder after completing the necessary formalities. The chilly powder so purchased, was divided into three equal parts, and put into three glass bottles, which were duly sealed, as per the provisions of law. One part of the sealed sample along with copy of Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis. Remaining two parts of the same were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Rohtak. Report of the Public Analyst, Haryana came to the effect that the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, the government Food Inspector, launched prosecution against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the act.

(3.) ON appearance of the petitioner/ accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, he moved an application, for sending the second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly, the second part of the sample of chilly powder was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Report of the Central Food Laboratory was also to the effect that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards.