SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Sat Pal challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 7.12.1987 and that of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani dated 14.8.1987/19.8.1987. The learned trial-court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He had preferred an appeal which was dismissed but the sentence was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and the fine was reduced to Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 31.12.1982 Food Inspector Chand Ram accompanied by Dr. G.S. Narula visited the business premises of the petitioner. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served a notice in Form VI to the petitioner. Wheat flour was purchased from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 1.20 against a receipt. The wheat flour purchased was stirred and thereafter placed into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were labelled and securely fastened in accordance with the procedure. The paper slip with the signatures of the Local Health Authority was pasted. The signatures of the petitioner were taken on the sample and affixed in such a manner that paper slip and wrapper carried part of the signatures. The papers were further secured by means of a strong thread. It was fastened on the paper cover by means of a sealing wax bearing the seal impression of Dr. Narula. The sample was seized in the presence of Roop Singh besides Dr. Narula. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst. The other two bottles were handed over to the Local Health Authority with seals intact alongwith two copies of the memo. A copy of the memo and specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst separately. Report was received. It was found to have ash insoluble in dil. HCl 0.2% against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.15% and grit 0.1%. The complaint was filed against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the first instance urged that the wheat flour so seized was not meant for sale and, therefore, in the facts of the case, the trial Court as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge were in error. It has already been noted above that the learned trial Court held that the wheat flour was sold by the petitioner. In fact such a plea was never raised before the trial Court so specifically. The first Appellate court has rejected this contention. Reliance in this regard was placed on the well known decision in the case of Nirmal Kumar and another v. State, 1987 Criminal Law Journal 46. The said finding so arrived at is based on the material on the record. This Court would be slow to interfere unless the findings are perverse, absurd or there is total mis-carriage of justice. It is not so in the present case. This contention, therefore, must fail.