MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the two courts below for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act' (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that sample of 600 grams of Urad Whole Daal' was purchased from the petitioner who was dealing in this food stuff. It was divided into three parts and on analysis, it was found that it was adulterated. According to the prosecution case, the sample did not satisfy the requirements under A.18.06.06 in appendix B to the Rules which prescribes:

(2.) THE Public Analyst vide its report Ext.P -9 held that inorganic matter was 1.78% by weight (against the maximum prescribed standard of 1 %), damaged graina, were 8.49% by weight (against the maximum prescribed standard of 5%) and total foreign matter, other edible grains and damaged grains were 11.38% by weight (against the maximum prescribed standard of 9% i.e. 4% edible grains and 5% damaged grains). The sample was taken from the shop of the accused on 14.3.1997 on the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant. Appeal filed by the petitioner herein against his 'conviction was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner is now in revision challenging his conviction.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the minimum quantity of 'Daal' which was required to be sent for analysis under the prevalent rules, namely, Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as they existed prior to the amendment on 29.7.2002 was 250 grams. In the present case what I find is that the quantity seized was 600 grams which was divided into three parts and one part was sent for analysis i.e. 200 grams which is less than the mandatory requirement of the Rules.