STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector, Jagat Ram, visited Bangali Sweet Shop, Dalhousie, on 1 -4 -1985. He took sample of boiled cows milk to the extent of 660 grams, after disclosing his identity, from Hans Raj, Salesman, of the shop owned by Kuldip Singh. The sample was divided into three parts and then put in three dry and clean bottles which were sealed, wrapped, labelled and tightened according to rules. Paper slip, issued by the Health Authority, was also pasted thereon and the signatures of accused Hans Raj and marginal witness Satish Kumar were obtained on each bottle.

(2.) One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, for analysis on 2 -4 -198 while the other two were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Chamba. After analysis, by a report of 14 -5 -1985 (Ex. PA), the Public Analyst opined that the percentage of milk solids -not -fat was found deficient by 29% than the minimum prescribed standard. There were certain typographical mistakes in the said report and as a result thereof, it was sent twice to the Public Analyst by the Local Health Authority for necessary corrections. Then sanction, dated 29 -9 -1985 (Ex. PB), was obtained from the Chief Medical Officer, Chamba, under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the prosecution of the accused. Copies of the report of the Public Analyst and the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act were sent to the accused through registered post on 14 -10 -1985 by the Local Health Authority. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial ended in the acquittal of Kuldip Singh and conviction of Hans Raj by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, in Cr. Case No 191/1,54/1 U of 1985, decided on 13 -8 -1986.

(3.) Against conviction, Hans Raj filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Chamba and against the acquittal of Kuldip Singh, the State preferred appeal in this Court. The appeal of Hans Raj was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Chamba, on 16 -1 -1969 and he was acquitted of the charge. This decision has been challenged by the State in this Court. It is in these circumstances that both these matters have come before this Court. Since they are common in nature, they are being decided by this single judgment.