VINOD LAYALL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner against the judgments passed by the Courts below whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months and the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upholding his conviction, whereas the sentence was reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 30.9.1983. Food Inspector had taken the sample of Vanasapti Ghee from the canteen of the accused-petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the sample was adulterated. Resultantly, the Food Inspector filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. After recording the evidence of complainant, the statement of the accused was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for accused-petitioner submitted before me that in the present case, the accused-petitioner is entitled to be acquitted on the short ground that at the time of taking of sample, the Food Inspector had not stirred the Vanaspati Ghee nor the Vanaspati Ghee was heated before taking the sample. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by this Court, in the case of Mitha Ram v. State of Punjab, 1989(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 34 : 1989(2) RCR(Crl.) 100 (P&H). No authority to the contrary has been cited before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.