HARWANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 04-04-2002 vide which the appeal against the judgment dated 10-11-2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting the petitioner under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) THE first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that percentage of milk solids not fat, as per the Rules, should be 8.5%, whereas, it has been found to be 8.1%. Thus, the difference is only .4% and not 5% of the minimum prescribed standard, as concluded by the Public Analyst in his report dated 30-06-1999. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this conclusion has been erroneously drawn and could be either typographical error or a wrong mathematical calculation.

(3.) TAKING up this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same, in as much as, no evidence was led to show that the findings recorded by the Public Analyst that there was deficiency in milk solids by 5.0% instead of 0.4% was inaccurate. Rather, this objection was not raised anywhere either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. No issue was framed. Even a question to this effect was not put to any of the witnesses. This ground has not even been taken in the grounds of the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. Not even an application for leading additional evidence or amendment of the pleadings was ever filed before the Appellate Court or this Court. This argument is, therefore, rejected and is, therefore, restrain from raising the same at this stage.