RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE facts alleged against the petitioner are these;

(3.) THE grouse of the petitioner is that the Food Inspector did not mention in his complaint the factum of his having stirred the milk in order to make it homogeneous before effecting purchase of the sample from the petitioner. It is maintained that it is only at the trial stage that such an averment was made. It is clear that no such fact was mentioned in the complaint and it is only in the statement of the Food Inspector that this fact was disclosed. The lower appellate Court, however, took the view that since the Food Inspector was not cross-examined for the purpose, there is a presumption that he had taken the sample properly, as all official acts are supposed to have been done correctly. Additionally, the accused petitioner having not laid his grouse thereto it his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was adversely commented upon.