DHARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No. 11/87 (33/85) by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment dated 29-1-1985 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 115/81. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the accused petitioner for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'the PFA Act') and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP at length and have gone through the record.

(3.) The facts may be narrated in brief. On 14-9-1981 Ram Gopal Sharma, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of M/s. Dharam Chand Narendra Kumar Chhabra Kirana Merchant, Srikaranpur at about 4 p.m. Dharam Chand was present there. The petitioner found that about 10 kg. of chilli powder was kept in wooden box and was exhibited for sale. The inspector gave form No. VII to the petitioner and purchased 600 grams of red chilli powder for the purpose of analysis. He paid its price and obtained Ex.P/2. He divided the sample in three equal parts and poured in three bottles and sealed them for analysis. He also prepared the memo. Then one of the sample was sent to the public analyst who examined it and submitted report Ex.P/7. The sample was found adulterated as it did not confirm to the prescribed standard. Then the consent was obtained and complaint was submitted before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. In compliance of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, notice Ex.P./10 was sent to the petitioner by registered post, receipt of which is Ex.P./11. The acknowledgement has been exhibited "Y" which was received by one Narendra Kumar. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after trial according to law convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated above. On appeal the conviction and sentence were maintained.