SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 21st October. 1995 whereby the conviction and sentence inflicted Union the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu on 9th May, 1995 has been upheld.

(2.) Petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offence under Section 16(1 - A) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). After continent of the trial, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 16(1 -A) of the Act for selling adulterated as well as mis -branded Heldi powder (turmeric. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was ordered to under go further simple imprisonment for 6 months. This conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court was upheld in appeal by the appellate Court below, hence this revision.

(3.) So far the facts relating to PW -1 Food Inspector visiting the premises of (he petitioner on 16th June, 1992 at about 11.50 A.M. as well as taking sample of Biggul Brand Haldi which was stored by the petitioner in his shop premises at Alu -Ground, Manali, meant for sale is concerned, it is not in dispute. After observing the codal formalities of purchase as well as packing and scaling of article of food and its dispatch to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis and opinion is concerned, it is amply established from the statement of PW -I and is corroborated by the report of Public Analyst dated 23rd, July. 1992 vide Ex.PW -1/H.