PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge herein in this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr. P.C.'), is against the judgment dated 01.07.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2001, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the convict', has been dismissed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed upon him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., vide judgment dated 20.03.2001, for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'), for selling adulterated and misbranded article of food, i.e. 'Mamta Reori', in contravention of the provisions of Rules 32 (b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules'), has been maintained. Shorn of details facts of the case are that on 02.01.1998, at about 12.30 PM, Food Inspector, Shri G.R. Puri (PW-1), inspected the grocery shop of the convict in village Chandpur in the presence of Shri Krishan Lal (PW-3). On inspection, it was found that 35 packets of 'Mamta Reori' were kept in the shop for sale. These packets were purported to have been manufactured by Golden Confectionery, Ludhiana. Out of which, the Food Inspector purchased three packets, each weighing 400 grams for Rs. 30/-. The sample packets were wrapped, fastened and sealed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. One part of the sample along with Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, in a sealed parcel by registered post. Copy of Form-VII along with specimen seal impression was also sent separately by registered post in a sealed envelope. The remaining two parts of the sample along with two copies of Form-VII and seal impression were deposited with the Local Health Authority (LHA), Bilaspur. The Public Analyst submitted report Ex. P-9 and opined as under:-

(2.) On getting written consent from the Chief Medical Officer, the Food Inspector filed complaint in the Court.

(3.) Pursuant to an application under Section 13(2) of the Act moved by the convict the second part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, which submitted report Ex. P-13, which is as under: