SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 1/NL/10 of 1999, decided on 21.7.2001 whereby he has affirmed the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Criminal Case No. 161/3 of 1994 decided on 22.2.1999 convicting the petitioner of having committed an offence under Section 16(1-A)(i),(ii) read with Section 7(i)& (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( for short: the PFA Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-.

(2.) THE Food Inspector inspected the premises of the accused at Naya-Gram on 20.3.1994. Sample of Haldi powder was taken and sent for analysis. The public analyst found the sample to be adulterated and misbranded and thereafter prosecution was launched against the accused. After the pre-charge evidence, the accused was charge sheeted and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

(3.) AS far as the first ground is concerned, by now it is well settled law that it is not necessary for the Food Inspector in every case to associate an independent witness. In the present case, it is clear that six packets of Haldi powder were purchased from the shop of the petitioner. This in fact has not been seriously disputed by him. Since, Haldi was in the packets, non- association of any independent witness loses any significance.