STATE OF H.P. Vs. BHUPINDER GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, dated 5.3.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him for the offence under Section 10(1)(a)(i) punishable under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.8.2001, at about 2.15 P.M., Jagdish Dhiman, Food Inspector, visited shop of the respondent, gave him his introduction and sought licence from him, which was shown by the respondent, who had kept toffees in his shop for sale. He further stated that he intends to give a notice in Form -VI for taking of the samples, but the respondent refused to give him sample, gave him threat and thereafter, he prepared a panchnama. After obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, he filed the complaint before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of CW -1 Jagdish Dhiman, Food Inspector and that of the peon attached with him, namely, CW -3 Kishan Chand. CW -1 has stated that when he went to the shop of the respondent, demanded licence from him and same was shown by the respondent to him. He thereafter stated that he intended to give him a notice in Form -VI, but the respondent refused to give sample. According to provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of 'the Act', the Food Inspector has to give a notice in writing showing his intention to have the sample analysed, which he intends to take from the shop. There is nothing on record to show that any notice in Form -VI or any other notice was issued by the complainant to the respondent showing his intention to take the sample. He cannot verbally demand that the sample be sold to him for the purpose of analysis, but he has to give a notice to the respondent indicating his intention to take the sample, which was not done by the complainant, which makes his version doubtful. The notice has to be given in writing and in case notice had been prepared by him and issued to the respondent, if the respondent refused to take the notice, which would have substantiated the case of the complainant, which is not so. CW -1 has stated that he prepared a panchnama Ext. P -1 and joined Kishan Chand, Peon, as a witness to the panchnama, but the respondent has refused to sign the same. However, statement of CW -3 Kishan Chand, only eye witness, who is a Class -IV under the Food Inspector, has stated that this panchnama was prepared by the Food Inspector in his office subsequently, which clearly shows that it was not prepared at the spot or no notice under Section 11(1)(a) of 'the Act' was issued to the respondent. The witness was attached with the Food Inspector and was working under him and in all probability, he was to support the complainant, but there is nothing why he does not support the complainant and stated that this panchnama was prepared subsequently in the office. Therefore, his version makes the statement of the complainant doubtful, which cannot be relied upon.