RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance record of the courts below has been examined.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this case are that initially challan was presented against Dharam Chand under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein -in -after referred to as the Act). On 5.10.1991, Food Inspector Jagat Ram had purchased iodised salt from Dharam Chand as per the provisions of the Act for getting it analysed. After issuing notice to him of his such intention, he purchased 600 grams of iodised salt taken from sealed bag. Receipt of its payment is Ex. PB. Thereafter this salt was equally apportioned in three packets which were properly packed and sealed as required under the Act. After completing the codal formalities under the Act and rules framed thereunder, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Chandigarh for analysis and other two packets were sent to the Local Health Authority, Chamba. These were sent by registered post.

(3.) After analysis it was found by the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh as under: "Mattar insoluble in water of the contents of the sample is 1.48% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.0%." Since the sample did not conform to the tests as per provisions of the Act, therefore, respondent Dharam Chand was challaned in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba. Sanction to launch proceedings was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer, Chamba as envisaged under Section 20 of the Act. Said Dharam Chand was intimated regarding the receipt of report of the Public Analyst as well as launching of prosecution against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba vide Ex. PW -3/ B. At the same time, Food Inspector, Chamba intimated the Local Health Authority, Chamba, District Chamba to send the intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act to Dharam Chand, respondent. Record shows that this requirement of law was also complied with.