STATE OF H.P. Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Desh Raj, Respondent, who was prosecuted by the Appellant in the trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), carries on his karyana shop at Chauntara, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi. On December 23, 1983 Sh. P.S. Verma, the then Food Inspector after disclosing his identify and also expressing his desire to lift the sample of Ajwain for the purpose of analysis, purchased 450 gram thereof against due payment of Rs. 4 -50 paise against receipt Ex. PB in the presence of witness Sh. Charan Singh. After observing codel formalities, the said sample was divided into three equal parts and was put into three neat, clean and dry bottles which were sealed and wrapped in accordance with law Later on sample was sent to the analyst at Chandigarh (Punjab). Vide his report Ex PE, he found the contents of the sample containing 3.30% of inorganic extraneous matter against a maximum prescribed standard of 20 percent. The Food Inspector, thereafter afforded an opportunity to Desh Raj by intimating him vide letter dated 23 -9 -1984 that his commodity to which sample was taken by him was found to be adulterated/misbranded and in case he wanted the second Sample kept in the office of the local health authority concerned, to be analysed from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, he can do so within ten days after the receipt of the letter (Ex. PW 3/B). Subsequently, he sought sanction (Ex PF) from the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi District, H.P. for the prosecution of the Respondent and prosecuted him for the commission of offence referred to above.

(2.) THE notice of accusation was given and explained to the accused but he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) SH . C.L. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent -State of H. P., as Special Public Prosecutor, has attempted to persuade this Court that once the sanction order has been exhibited and accepted by the trial Court without any objection raised by the opposite party, it could not have been assailed by the Respondent during the course of arguments nor the Court below could have held it to be illegal and void document not capable of being acted upon for the purpose of basing his conviction by prosecuting the Respondent.