KHAINKHOO RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, father and son, were convicted by the trial Judge in Criminal Case No. 34-III of 1984 decided on 23.5.1984 for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged this judgment before the learned Sessions Judge. Kangra Division, in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1984, decided on 26.11.1985 The present petition was filed through jail. In the meantime, it appears that they were released on bail on 24. 1. 1986. However, they did not appear either in person or through any counsel when this matter came up for hearing. Shri K. D. Sood, Advocate, was requested to appear and plead for them. He was kind enough to accept the request and assailed the judgment by number of submissions and impressed me a lot for coming to the conclusion in this case.

(2.) SHRI K. D. Sood raised number of submissions, but I confine this judgment to a few of them which I consider fundamental to clinch the issue.

(3.) THE second point urged by the learned counsel for the accused is that Shri Khainkhoo Ram was neither an employee nor a partner of the shop of Milkho Ram accused. Therefore, he could not be held liable for the offence in question. He was present in the shop only in the absence of Milkho Ram accused when the article 'kala chana' (black gram) were taken for analysis. Reference is made to the decision of this Court reported as Bihari Lal and another v. the State of H.P., 1987(1) 85. The present case stands even at a better footing than this case cited by the learned counsel for the accused. In the case referred supra, the person from whom the sample was taken was at least an employee (Munim) but in the case before me, neither Khainkhoo Ram was an employee nor a partner, as already observed. The result, therefore, is that the conviction of the accused suffers on this ground also.