JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has flied the present revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. to seek the quashing of his conviction and sentence for the offence under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulte ration Act (herein after called as the Act as recorded by the Chief Judicial. Magistrate, Solan, vide her order dated 9/15th March 1983 and upheld by the Sessions Judge, Solan; vide his order dated 15th September, 19.83.

(2.) The facts of this case which lie in its very narrow compass, may be stated like this. The petitioner runs his shop at Barotiwala a small village falling in tehsil Kasauli district Solan, on 23.5.1981 the Food Inspector, Solan purchased a sample of khand for the purpose of analysis from the petitioner. It is not disputed that the sample so purchased, was dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and after analysis, the Public Analyst submitted his report. The relevant portion of this report reads like this: TIJ further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows: Physical appearance dirty white coloured contents. and I am of the opinion that the contents of the sample contain 94.47% of sucrose against minimum prescribed standard of 96.5 % for cane sugar. It was on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Public Analyst that the sample of khand purchased from the petitioner was treated as adulteryted within the definition of this term as found in the Act and the petitioner was prosecuted and ultimately convicted for the offence under section 16(1)(e)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The only point which has been raised in this petition by Shri Kapil Dev Sood, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Public Analyst had not applied the proper standard prescribed for the item of which sample in question was picked up from the petitioner and that in case the proper prescribed standard had been applied the sample could out be called as adulterated. The contention of the learned counsel is that the sample which was sold by the Mecro and Micro analysis -No insect detected No mould growth. Moisture O.32% Total Ash 9.46% Sulphur dioxide- 54.4 parts per million Sucrose 94.47% petitioner was of Tkhandsari whereas the Public Analyst while analysing this sample has applied the standard prescribed for cane sugar It is not disputed before me that the sample does answer the standard prescribed for khandsyri though it does not answer the standard prescribed for cane- sugar The only point, therefore, which calls for consideration is whether the sample sold by the petitioner was of cane-sugar or of khandsari.