DINA NATH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) vide Notification No. HFW B(A)12 -7/83. dated 30th August, 1983, imposed a ban on use and sale of non -iodised salt throughout the Himachal Pradesh, with immediate effect.

(2.) The present petitioner was running a shop in village Dobi, in District Kullu On 13 -3 -1990 the Food Inspector visited the business premises of the petitioner, where the petitioner had kept for sale 36 packets of Tarn Tam brand of Iodised salt each packet was weighing 1 k.g. of the said Iodised salt The Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder purchased 600 grams of the alleged Iodised salt, from one of the packets, against cash payment and the salt so purchased was divided into three parts and sealed as per procedure. One of the sealed sample was sent to the public analyst, on the basis of whose report the contents of the sample were opined to be of non -iodised common salt and not of iodised salt. According to the Public Analyst, the use and sale of non iodised salt had been banned throughout the Himachal Pradesh vide Government Notification No. HFW -B(A) 2 -7/83, dated 30 -8 1983, The result of the analysis was as under: Description : The contents of the sample received in a glass bottle. Iodine as Iodide=Absent. Iodine as Io date=Absent. NaCl dry basis = 96.74%. Water soluble matter other than NaCl =2.70%. Moisture =3.12% Water Insoluble matter = 0.56%,"

(3.) The accused -petitioner was sent information under section 13 (2) of the Act and thereafter the complaint was preferred before the trial Magistrate, after obtaining sanction for the same.