RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmur District, on 18th May, 1982 for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts, however, dismissed the appeal on 10th September, 1982. Aggrieved by the said order judgment, the petitioners had preferred this revision petition in this court.

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated. Subhash Chand petitioner has been carrying on a provision shop at Dhaulakuan, within District Sirmur. Ramesh Chand petitioner is his brother. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams suji on 28th September, 1979, from Ramesh Chand petitioner, who was sitting at the said shop, for the purpose of analysis, after giving a notice, which was divided in three equal parts. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyse who opined that the sample contained 50 living and dead aspects and the contents were unfit for human consumption. Consequently, the petitioners were found guilty of the offence alleged; and were sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence, if any made against the petitioners, is under section 16(1-a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act in short) and not under section 16(1-A) of the Act. It is convenient to extract the said provisions for a ready reference: 16 Penalties-