STATE OF H P Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent faced prosecution in the instant case for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) & 7(ii) and in contravention of the Rules 32 (b)(f), 47, 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, 1955 framed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', allegedly for selling sweet scented saunf, which was found to be adulterated. The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted on the ground that there was non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such, filed the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record in the light of relevant law.

(2.) In short the prosecution case can be summed up thus. On 12.7.2000, CW1 I.D. Verma, Food Inspector intercepted the shop of the respondent and found that besides grocery, he had kept some packets of sweet scented saunf each weighing 100 grams for sale to the general public. On disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector served a notice Ext.P1 upon the respondent to have a sample for analysis by the Public Analyst and purchased three sealed packets of the said article on payment of Rs. .21/- against receipt Ext.P2.

(3.) Finding reasonable grounds to proceed against the respondent, he was accordingly summoned. On putting his appearance, he immediately applied for sending second part of the sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory (C.F.L.). Vide order dated 19.10.2000 passed on the said application, learned trial Court sent a notice to the Local (Health) Authority concerned and the Food Inspector to produce the second part of the sample on 25.10.2000, so as to send it to CFL for analysis. Second sample was produced, thereafter sent to the Director, C.F.L. The learned trial Court did not stay the proceedings till its report and examined witnesses, which should not have been done. The sample was analyzed in the Central Food Laboratory. Certificate of test of analysis dated 25.1.2001 was issued. In the opinion of the Director, C.F.L., the said sample contravenes the provisions of Rule 32(b)(f), 47, 23 and 29 of the PFA Rules, 1955. But, at the end of trial, respondent was acquitted on the sole ground of non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act.