STATE OF H.P. Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have gone through the records of this case.

(2.) Respondent was tried before the court below under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was found guilty for having committed said offence, as such he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine he was required to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Respondent was dissatisfied with this judgment passed by the trial Court, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the appellate court below, By means of judgment dated 1 -10 -1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sirmaur district at Nahan, appeal of the respondent had been allowed and consequently his conviction and sentence has been set aside. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State.

(3.) Facts in this case are within narrow compass. Ft is not disputed on behalf of the appellant that respondent is running a tea stall at Paonta Sahib when sample of milk was drawn by the Food Inspector on 25 -7 -1991 front the said tea stall after having disclosed his intention to draw sample. Food Inspector appears to have drawn the sample on the assumption that the milk that was kept by the respondent in his tea stall was meant for sale to the general public and on this basis he proceeded to draw the sample in question.