LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-14

ASHWANI SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On July 01, 2016
Ashwani Sood Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.PC is directed against the judgment dated 12.3.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 41 -S/10 of 2006 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 17.6.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla in Criminal Case No. 572/3 of 2004 titled "State verses Ashwani Sood."

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 4th June, 2004 at about 2:00PM, the Food Inspector (the Inspector for the sake of brevity) namely Shri LD Thakur, visited M/s Hotel Varuna, Bawa Market, Shimla and found owner of the aforesaid Hotel, namely Ashwani Sood (in short the accused) to be conducting the business. Since he had kept cold drinks, tea, coffee and mineral water etc., in the shop for sale to the general public, the Inspector asked him to produce the licence for selling food articles but the accused failed to produce the same. Since the accused on demand made by the Inspector failed to provide the valid licence as required under Rule 50 of the Food and Prevention of Adulteration Rules,1956 (in short the Rules), the Inspector prepared the spot map and carried out necessary codal formalities to challan the accused. Record further reveals that the Inspector on the basis of material collected by him sought written consent/sanction from the CMO, Shimla to prosecute the accused, which was accordingly sanctioned. After procuring sanction from the competent authority, complaint was presented in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.2, Shimla, HP and after close scrutiny of the documents annexed with the compliant, the accused was summoned.

(3.) Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that prima -facie case exists against the accused, put a notice of accusation to him under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, ( in short the Act) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.