OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision in a case of conviction under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegation that the petitioners were manufacturing and selling ice candies in which the presence of sucrose was less than the prescribed standard and there was presence of artificial sweetener (Saccharine).

(2.) THE main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure under the cases to be titled as warrant cases was not followed. Secondly, he has argued that the independent witness was not examined.

(3.) IN these circumstances even while dismissing the revision I reduce the sentence of petitioner No. 1 to a fine of Rs.50,000 and that of the petitioner No.2 to the period which he has already undergone.