STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated February 9, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the judgment dated January 31, 1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I-Class (II), Nurpur convincing the accused under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules) awarding him sentence of undergoing rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months has been set aside and the accused has been acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 B. S. Sidhu, Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused in the Court Complex at Nurpur on March 25, 1992 and allegedly, after observing the formalities as provided under the Rules, purchased a sample of cooked 'Dal Masar' prepared in 'Vanaspati' for the purpose of analysis and the sample so purchased was dealt with in accordance with the Rules and part thereof was got analysed from the Public Analyst. Vide report Ext. PH, the Public Analyst opined that the sample contained oil soluble coal-tar-dye of orange shade which is not a permitted food colour. Moreover, the addition of even coaltar food colour to such foods as the sample is, is not permitted under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules.

(3.) After obtaining the requisite sanction, PW-1 B. S. Sidhu, Food Inspector, lodged a complaint against the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (1-A) of the Act and Rule 29 of the Rules. The accused came to be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate I-Class (II), Nurpur who convicted the accused under Section 16(1-A) of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Rules and sentenced him as aforesaid.