MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Whether the non-compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), would vitiate the conviction under S.7 read with S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)' is the main question which falls for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition. This question has arisen in the following circumstances :

(2.) The petitioner runs a petty shop in village Nangal Khurad. On 4-8-1980, PW Prem Chand, Food Inspector visited the petitioner's shop and after disclosing his identity and the purpose of his visit, he purchased a sample of sweet-balls from the petitioner. This sample was purchased and dealt with on the spot in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. One part of the sample was later sent to the Public Analyst along with form-VII bearing the specimen impressions of the seal used in sealing the sample. The other two parts of the sample were deposited with the Local (Health) Authority. On being analysed by the Food Analyst, one of the sweet-balls contained in the sample was found to contain a red-coal tar dye, other than that permitted under the Rules. On account of the presence of such un-permitted coal-tar dye, the sample was declared adulterated. A complaint under S.16 read with S.7 was accordingly filed against the petitioner. On the basis of that complaint, the petitioner was charged and tried for the said offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 - by the trial court. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence as recorded by the trial court.

(3.) The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court to seek the quashing of the order of his conviction and sentence.