BISHESHWAR DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 -5 -1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 28 -S/10 of 1993, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, by his judgment and order dated 7 -10 -1993, held the petitioner guilty no convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(2.) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm Messrs Tulsi Ram Jagar Nath at Mashobra. He deals in grocery. The Food Inspector, on 29 -5 -1990, visited the show of the petitioner when he was having about 60 Kilograms of "Besan" for sale to the general public. The Food Inspector purchased 600 gms of "Besan" from the petitioner after due notice ot him that the "Besan" was being purchased as sample for the purpose of analysis. The sample so purchased was separated in three equal parts in three neat, clean and dry bottles. The said bottles were then packed, fastened, labelled and sealed in the presence of the petitioner and the witnesses present. One of the sealed bottle was sent ot Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst vide his report dated 28 -6 -1990, opined that the "Besan" was adulterated, since the contents of the sample contained wheat and 1 maize starch as admixture whereas Bsan" should not contain any foreign ingredient. On the receipt of the report of Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, after obtaining the requisite written consent from the competent authority, lauched prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, being criminal case No. 5/3 of 1990.

(3.) The petitioner, on having put in appearance, before the Court applied under section 13(2) of the Act for sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The second part of the sample was accordingly sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The Director, Central Food Laboratory vide his report dated 14 -2 -1991 reported that the sample did not conform to the standards of Besan under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, since the same was not free from a foreign ingredient identified as "Kesari" flour which was against rule 44A(e) of the Rules framed under the Act.