STATE OF H P Vs. SAINU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under S. 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been directed by the State against the judgment dated 15-3-1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Cr. Appeal No. 14-NL/10 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 16(1-A)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act).

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution story is this. The respondent is a sweet meat seller at Nalagarh. On 23-7-1992 Food Inspector P.W. 1 Shri H. L. Pathak purchased 1200 grams of "Burfi" as sample from the respondent for the purpose of analysis. At that time, the respondent was having about 5 Kgs. of "Burfi" for sale to the general public. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and after adding the necessary preservative each of the three parts were packed, fastened and sealed in three separate neat, clean and dry bottles. On the sample having been sent for analysis, the Public Analyst reported the sample to be adulterated since it contained aluminium leaf which is not used for edible purpose. After obtaining the requisite consent of the competent authority, the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the respondent for the offence under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent did not plead guilty (sic) and claimed trial. The defence put forth by the respondent is that the "Burfi" had not been kept by him for sale. The same was prepared on the asking of Hari Ram. Pradhan and that the raw material therefor was supplied by the said Hari Ram.