DEEP CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition filed by Deept Chand- petitioner is directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated October 17, 1985 and December 9, 1987 respectively. The learned Judicial Magistrate had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on February 28, 1981, Government Food Inspector Sham Lal accompanied by Dr. Hari Singh visited the shop of the petitioner in village Bhojawas. The petitioner has been running a shop near the bus stop. The petitioner was present at his shop. 10 kilograms of 'Shakkar' had been kept in a gunny bag for sale. Food Inspector introduced himself and purchased 600 grams of 'Shakkar' against payment. A notice was served on the petitioner. Thereupon, Food Inspector divided the purchased 'Shakkar' into three equal parts. They were bottled in three separate dry and clean bottled. The bottles were labelled, stoppred and then wrapped in a strong thick paper. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana alongwith a memorandum in Form-7 in sealed cover. The other two bottles alongwith Form-7 bearing the seal impressions were handed over to the Local Health Authority. Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. This led to the filing of the complaint against the petitioner. The trial court on appraisal of the material on the record and considering all facts and circumstances held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as already mentioned above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) EXHIBIT P-1 is the report of the Central Food Laboratory. Perusal of it reveals that the seals on the container were intact and that out of ten seals four were of the court. They tallied it to the seal impression given on the memo. Most important is that other six seals did not tally. The seals on the outer cover were only intact.