LAWS(HPH)-1999-5-28

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GULSHAN KUMAR

Decided On May 24, 1999
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
GULSHAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated September 6, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the conviction of and sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu to the accused/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') in Complaint Case No. 126 -1/93/66 -111/93, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as 'Act') was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the present appeal are that PW -1, P.L. Sharma, Food Inspector, Kullu visited the shop premises of the accused known as Kaundal General Store at Badah on November 24, 1992 at about 12.05 p.m. when the accused was attending the shop as servant. Wheat flour for sale to the general public was displayed in the shop. The Food Inspector expressed his intention to purchase the sample of the wheat flour from the accused and gave him a notice Ext. PW -1/Ain the presence of PW Paramjit Singh. After purchasing 600 grams of wheat flour from the accused for the consideration paid in the sum of Rs. 2.75 vide receipt Ext. PW - 1/B, the Food Inspector allegedly dealt with the sample as per the rules. On analysis, the wheat flour sample was found to contain moisture to the extent of 14.5% as against the maximum prescribed limit of 14% under the Act vide report Ext. PW -1/H of the Public Analyst. Hence, the accused came to be tried under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW -1 Food Inspector P.L. Sharma under Section 20(1) of the Act in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused.