JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has tiled the present revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr. P.G. to seek the quashing of his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 16(1)(a.) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act) as recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, vide her order dated 9/15th March 1983 and up-held by the Sessions Judge, Solan, vide his order dated 15th Sept., 1983.

(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 tillage 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, wag dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act. 0ne 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:-

(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 not be called as adulterated. The contention of the learned counsel is that the sample which was sold by the petitioner was of 'khandsari' 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 'khandsari' though it does not answer the standard prescribed '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".