RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1996 decided on 5.1.2001 whereby he has upheld the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin in Criminal Case No.477-1 of 1993 decided on 6.2.1996 convicting the accused of having committed offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1-A) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 16(1-A) of the Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.9.1993 at about 3 p.m. Sh.G.R.Puri, Food Inspector inspected the Karyana shop of the petitioner-accused and in the presence of one witness Dharam Singh found that the accused had exposed for sale 60 k.g. of "whole Urad dal" in a shop. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identify took the sample thereof. He purchased 600 gms. of Urad Dal from the accused and the accused acknowledged the receipt of the amount in his own hand. After following the sampling procedure the Dal was sent to the Public Analyst and as per the report of the Public Analyst the Dal was found to be adulterated and also unfit for human consumption. The accused was accordingly charged for having committed offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Trial Court convicted the accused as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.

(3.) PW -3 Dharam Singh turned hostile. However, in cross examination by the Public Prosecutor he states that he does not know whether the accused runs any Karyana Shop at village Bhaloo. He has also denied that the accused had kept 60 k.g. of Urad Dal for sale in a gunny bag. He has however admitted his signatures on the various documents and has also clearly stated that there was no pressure put on him by the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector issued a notice in form-6 to the accused informing the accused that he had taken from the shop premises of the accused sample of "Whole Urad Dal" for analysis. The accused has counter signed this form-