LAWS(HPH)-2009-4-84

SIRI RAM Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On April 17, 2009
SIRI RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faced the trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allegedly for selling adulterated "Shakker' to the Food Inspector and he could not produce the licence for the sale of this food article kept in his shop as required under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed there under. The learned trial court acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment .Yes. short 'the Act', but however, convicted him under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act as he is proved to be running a shop without having the requisite licence under the Act for the sale of the food articles, as such he was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which was challenged in appeal before the court of sessions in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, however, reduced the sentence to three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Against the concurrent findings of guilt, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the convict/petitioner.

(3.) Shri Ashok Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was neither owning a karyana shop nor he had ever been running the karyana shop, as alleged, thus, there was no question of production of the licence to the Food Inspector. He further submitted that the 'Shakker' with respect to which the Food Inspector had taken the sample was meant for the animal use and not for 'human consumption', which fact has been proved by the defence witnesses. The Food Inspector did not include an independent witness despite his availability to lend corroboration to his version. The courts below have failed to appreciate this point, thus the instant revision petition deserved to be allowed.