HARI LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 15th March, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No.25-S/10 of 1999 whereby, while exercising his Appellate jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal case No.41/3 of 1994. By the

(2.) WHETHER reporters of the Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? aforesaid judgment dated 23rd September, 1999, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan after convicting the petitioner for committing the offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in so far as the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) is concerned and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for committing the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for five months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE plea set up by the petitioner that the milk was not meant for sale and was meant for use in a "Sharad" ceremony did not inspire confidence either by the learned trial Magistrate or by the learned Appeal Court and meets the same fate as far as this Court is concerned. The sole witness who appeared for the petitioner in so far as this aspect is concerned has himself not given a proper or inspiring version about this fact. On a totality of circumstances I do not agree with the contention of Mr. Ramakant Sharma that the milk was not meant for sale and that it was meant for being used for a private purpose viz. "Sharad" ceremony of someone. This clearly seemed to be an after thought by the petitioner, especially also looking to the fact that the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses did not reflect this defence of the petitioner during the course of the trial.