LAWS(HPH)-1996-4-18

STATE OF H.P. Vs. ARUN KUMAR

Decided On April 25, 1996
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
ARUN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 30 -9 -1989 passed by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Criminal Case No. 56/3 of 1986, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under section 16 (l).(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26 -6 -1986 H. L Pathak, PW 4 had gone to the shop of respondent No 1 and after disclosing his identity, he purchased L500 grams of hard boiled sugar confectionery for the purpose of getting it analysed - The case of the prosecution further is that the sample on receipt of report from Public Analyst, Himachal Pradesh Kandaghat was found to be misbranded as the name and business address of the manufacturer was mentioned as Thakkar Confectionery Works (India) which fictitious besides this batch number, month and year of manufacture was not mentioned on the label of 500 grams packet. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PW 4/H was received by the Local Health Authority, Solan whereafter the said authority asked PW 4 vide Ex. PW 4/J to obtain necessary sanction from the Chief Medical Officer for launching prosecution for offences under the provisions of the Act in a court of law,

(3.) It appears that after the PW 4 had approached the Chief Medical Officer for according sanction authorising him to launch prosecution, sanction under section 20 of the Act was accorded vide sanction Ex. PW 4/K. After respondent No. 1 had appeared in court, he filed an application under section 20 of the Act for impleading respondent No. 2 because according to him he had purchased the hard boiled sugar confectionery from the said respondent vide their, cash memo No. 5354 dated 12 -5 -1986, he had brought the same in the same condition and cash memo Ex. AW I/A was produced by respondent No 1 before the trial Court, as a consequence thereof the application was allowed and respondent No. 2 after having been impleaded as a co -accused was ordered to be summoned.