KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges his conviction by the two Courts below sentencing him for offences under Section 16(1-A) and 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution case was that Food Inspector R.D. Verma PW1 inspected the shop M/s Soni Traders situated at Gandhi Chowk, Ghumarwin in the presence of PW5 Krishan Lal and PW6 Satish Chand on 31.12.1985 and found 50 Kg. sweets (hard boiled confectionary) in packets of 500 grams each marked as Dimple Sweets which were displayed in the shop for sale. He disclosed his identity to the petitioner herein, served a notice in Form-VI upon him and took a sample of said sweets for analysis. He purchased three packets of 500 grams each of the said sweets from accused against payment of Rs. 12/-. The receipt was prepared on the spot and handed over to the accused. The case further is that the Food Inspector treated each packet as a part of sample and packed, fastened and sealed the each packet after affixing paper slip No. SFD-1, 53 issued by the Local Health Authority, Bilaspur and also obtained the signatures of the accused on each part of the samples. Complaint against the petitioner was lodged on 17.7.1986 after purporting to comply with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. According to the prosecution, analysis of the seized sample disclosed that it was adulterated and mis-branded on three counts:

(2.) Appeal preferred against this judgment was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, who by his judgment dated 17.6.1995 returned the complaint to the Food Inspector to seek fresh prosectuion sanction in accordance with law. The prosecution case then proceeds that such sanction under Section 20(1) of the Act was infact obtained from the Chief Medical Officer on 30.7.1996 and thereafter the petitioner was asked to face trial for offences.

(3.) The prosecution has examined six witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner contested the correctness of the report submitted by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore Ext.P11 and stated that he did not own any shop at Ghumarwin. His case was that he along with Satish Kumar PW6 were proceeding towards Chandigarh from Nagrota. When they reached Ghumarwin, he went to meet his father-in-law Bansi Lal, who was owner of the shop and is since dead. He was not present at the spot and both the petitioner and PW6 Satish sat in the shop to wait the return of his father-in-law of the petitioner. At this juncture, the Food Inspector entered the shop and threatened the petitioner. He obtained his signatures etc. The sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer has also been challenged.