JANAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Janak Raj upon having been tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta was convicted for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 22.11.95 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Magistrate was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judged, Nahan vide judgment dated 27.5.97. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court by virtue of the present revision petition.

(2.) Food Inspector Sh G R. Pun on 26.11 91 at about 1.15 p m. had intercepted the petitioner at village Shamsherpur while he was carrying about 30 kg of cows milk in two drums on his cycle for sale to the general public. One of such drum contained about 18 kg of milk while the other drum contained 12 kg. of milk. The petitioner on demand could not produce the milk vendor licence. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mf. of cows milk from the petitioner as sample out of the drum containing -about 13 kg. of milk. Such sample on analysis was found to be adulterated since it was found deficient in milk fats as well as milk solids not fat to the extent of 94% and 15% respectively The Food inspector accordingly after obtaining (he requisite consent for the prosecution of the petitioner, presented the complaint before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner denied the charge. His case is that of denial simpliciter. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the material placed before him, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid.

(3.) The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed before the learned Sessions Judge, Nahan. His appeal was dismissed on 27.5 97 and the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Magistrate were affirmed. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a ratio laid down by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parshotam Dass, 1997(1) SLJ 219, has contended that the written consent Ext. PW 2/G dated 24.2.92 is not valid, since the competent authority had signed the draft written consent sent to it by the Food Inspector and there has been no application of mind by the competent authority before granting the written consent.