ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur. his convictions and sentence were maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur and hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also pursued the impugned orders. A sample of powdered Haldi was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner on 4.12.1981 at Bhawanigarh. The sample was divided in three parts and the packets were sealed. One of the samples which was sent for report to the Public Analyst revealed that it contained 10 dead insects. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the petitioner has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) THE main point which has been argued by the petitioner's counsel is that even though the report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample contained 10 dead insects, yet there was nothing on the record to disclose that the dead insects contained therein were injurious to health and made the same unfit for human consumption. He, therefore, submits that no offence has been committed. Reliance for this purpose is placed on a Supreme Court judgment in State [Delhi Administration] v. Puran Mal, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 52 : AIR 1985 SC 741, wherein it has been observed as under : -