STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge on January 6, 1997, in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1988, by which he set aside an order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (I), Hamirpur, dated March 3, 1988, in Case No. 20/III/86.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on June 26, 1986, at 1.30 p.m., Kashmir Singh Verma, Food Inspector, visited the shop of accused Desh Raj at Village Lambloo. According to the prosecution, the accused was a Kirana merchant. He had kept in his shop 20 packets of Madhu. Mirch weighing 80 grams each along with other eatable articles Mr. Verma disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to purchase Madhu Mirch for the purposes of analysis. He, accordingly, purchased nine packets of Madhu Mirch in their original packing on payment of Rs. 18.00. Those packets then were wrapped in three wrapping papers. After completing necessary formalities as provided in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the Food Inspector sealed those packets and obtained signature of the accused on each packet. He had also taken along with him, two persons, Joginder Singh and Jaishi Ram as witnesses, who also signed necessary Panchnama and other documents. One of the sealed packets, along with Memo VII, was then sent to Public Analyst, Kandaghat, under registered envelope. A memo in Form VII along with impression of seal used for sealing the sample was separately sent by another registered letter. Remaining two sealed packets were deposited with the Local Health Authority at Hamirpur. According to the prosecution, as per the report of Public Analyst Ex. PE, the sample was found to be adulterated and misbranded. A complaint was, therefore, filed against the accused and a case was, registered for an offence punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The accused pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) On the basis of the evidence recorded at the trial, the learned Magistrate framed the following points for determination: