LAWS(P&H)-1999-3-135

SATISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 18, 1999
SATISH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed to challenge the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, affirming the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the prosecution of the revision petitioner are that on 5.11.1982 when Shri S.K. Sharma, Food Inspector, Dr. B.K. Moyal and Mansa Ram, Peon had inspected the premises of his shop, which is situated in the main bazar of village Phangwan, Ferozepur Jhirka, a tin containing 15 kgs of Sarson oil was found in the possession of the petitioner. When the Food Inspector disclosed his identity indicating his intention to take the sample of Sarson oil after offering him Rs. 4.50 as price of 375 grams of oil, and served a notice Ex. PA in form VI. The petitioner had refused to accept the notice as well as the price offered by the Inspector. Thereafter, following the direction of his father - Prem Chand, the petitioner had run away from the shop after pushing aside Shri Sharma. His father Prem Chand had started shouting that he was also a partner of the shop and he would not allow the Inspector to take the sample and had subsequently himself run away from the shop. The PWs after waiting for some time had gone away and ultimately the Food Inspector had filed complaint Ex. PC against Satish Kumar and his father Prem Chand under Section 16(1)(C) of the Act. After trial the Judicial Magistrate had acquitted Prem Chand of the charge framed against him under Section 16(1)(C) of the Act but had convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as indicated herein before. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, he has filed the present revision.

(3.) I have heard Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Kapil Aggarwal and Shri Ashish Sanghi, Advocate for the State of Haryana.