Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1044 (PNJ)

Ram Sarup v. State Of Haryana

2001-09-24

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision is directed by Ram Sarup against the judgment dated 13.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby his appeal was dismissed and he upheld the judgment and order dated 1.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani, vide which he had found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, and sentenced him to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and a default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1-1/2 months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 31.3.1994 Shri Abhey Ram Government Food Inspector in the presence of Dr. Anil Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, inspected the premises of the petitioner situated near village Halwas, Dadri Road, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, and found that he was having in his possession about 4 Kgs of Mirch Powder contained in an iron tin for public sale. He disclosed identity and expressed his desire to take sample for analysis and gave him notice Ex. PA. Accordingly, he purchased 450 Gms of Lal Mirch powder from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 18/-vide receipt Ex.PB. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. The bottles were stoppered, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong thick paper which was secured by means of paper strips bearing code number and twine. The bottles were sealed. One sealed bottle along with memo in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis while the other two sealed bottles along with memo in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority. A copy of the memorandum and signatures of seal used was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh separately by registered post. 3. Upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst dated 11.3.1994, the sample was found adulterated as it contained ash insoluble in dilute HC exceeded the maximum specified limit of 1.3% and it also contained 1.0% grit contents and also contained artificial colouring matter identified as Red Shade oil soluble coal tar dye. 4. Shri Abhey Ram, Govt. Food Inspector, after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst filed complaint in the Court and also sent intimation to the Local Health Authority about launching of the complaint. 4. Shri Abhey Ram, Govt. Food Inspector, after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst filed complaint in the Court and also sent intimation to the Local Health Authority about launching of the complaint. The Local Health Authority sent intimation to the petitioner along with copy of the report of the Public Analyst through registered post stating therein that if he so desired he could get the second sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, and for this purpose he could approach the Court within ten days from the receipt of the letter. 5. After recording pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the charge, the Food Inspector was further cross-examined and beside PW2 Dr. Anil Chaudhary, he also examined PW3 Surender Kumar Clerk. 6. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. 7. After hearing the Government Food Inspector and the learned defence counsel, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2000 and sentenced as already mentioned above. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 13.7.2001. 9. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate and carefully gone through the file. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a an Ex-military personnel and at present is an agriculturist and has nothing to do with the Dhaba from where the alleged sample was taken and he had been falsely implicated. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioner was running a Dhaba and the sample of the Lal Mirch powder was taken from him, which he had kept for public sale. Even if it is presumed that Lal Mirch powder was not meant for public sale and was meant for use in preparation of vegetables, then also the sale to the Food Inspector for analysis purpose, comes under the definition of `sale. 12. Even if it is presumed that Lal Mirch powder was not meant for public sale and was meant for use in preparation of vegetables, then also the sale to the Food Inspector for analysis purpose, comes under the definition of `sale. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is non- compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as the Local Health Authority had not sent intimation to the petitioner along with copy of the report of the Public Analyst informing him that if he so desired, he could get the second sample retained by the Local Health Authority, examined from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, at proper address, but on the other hand, the address on the postal receipt. Ex. PW3/B shows that it was incomplete as only Ram Sarup R/o Halwas was written. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. The petitioner had conveniently ignored the forwarding letter Ex.PW3/A in which complete address of the petitioner has been mentioned. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced in defence the envelope through which the report of the Public Analyst along with the forwarding letter was sent suggesting that it contained incomplete address. The envelope was not received back undelivered. The only presumption is that it was delivered to the petitioner at the proper address. If the postal authorities did not mention complete address on the postal receipt, it did not mean that complete address of the petitioner was not given on the envelope. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the Food Inspector had not stated that the bottles were clean at the spot but stated that the bottles were already cleaned and as such, it cannot be said that the sample was properly taken and stored. Again, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. There is no evidence that any fungous was found in the bottles as the bottles were not properly cleaned. No other point has been urged before me. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment and order dated 1.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and the judgment dated 13.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, are not illegal and perverse but on the other hand are based on sound reasoning. No other point has been urged before me. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment and order dated 1.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and the judgment dated 13.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, are not illegal and perverse but on the other hand are based on sound reasoning. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.