TARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and order dated 11.10.2013, rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Case No. 05 dated 23.01.2017, as well as against judgment dated 20.03.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Criminal Appeal No. 78 dated 23.10.2013.

(2.) Petitioner Taranjit Singh was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days, under Section 16 of the Act. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal, which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that respondent/State through Food Inspector Paramjit Singh, Office of Civil Surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib, filed complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act, against the petitioner with the averments that complainant Paramjit Singh on 07.06.2006 at about 4.00 PM along with Dr. Vinod Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, inspected the premises of the petitioner. He was found in possession of 7 plastic crates of Banta Soda kept in room for sale and consumption. The complainant made efforts to join witnesses from the public. However, no person joined the investigation. The complainant disclosed his identity as Food Inspector to the petitioner. He showed his intention to take sample by serving notice in writing in Form VI. The complainant purchased nine bottles of Banta Soda on payment of Rs. 99/-. He obtained the receipt. The purchased nine bottles were divided into three equal parts of three bottles in one sample packet. The bottles were labeled and wrapped into thick brown paper. The paper slip was also duly signed by the Local Health Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib. All the three samples were sealed with seal bearing impressions and signatures of the complainant. The signatures of the petitioner were obtained partly on the slip and partly on the wrapper. The spot memo was prepared. The memorandum of Form VII was also prepared. One part of the sample and one copy of memorandum in Form VII duly sealed were given to Malkiat Singh, Class IV employee, for depositing with the Public Analyst, on 07.06.2006. The other two sample parcels were deposited with the office of Local Health Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib, on the same day. The result of the Public Analyst was that the contents of the sample contained saccharin as artificial sweetener to the extent of 80 P.P.M whereas the containers did not bear a label declaration regarding the addition of saccharin as required under the provisions of Rule 42 (zzz) (i) of PFA Rules, 1955. The product was also not labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of PFA Rules, 1955. Thus, the sample was misbranded. Complaint was filed against the petitioner.