OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 19.2.1997 under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment dated 1.6.2001 set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court with the direction to record the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 Code Criminal Procedure afresh by putting contents of report of public analyst/Director Central Food Laboratory. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition praying for acquittal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector on 19.8.1993 accompanied by his other staff members, visited the karyana shop of the petitioner and found him in possession of 20 kgs. of Moongi Di dal meant for sale and human consumption. This sample was taken by the Food Inspector according to Rules and thereafter it was sent to the public analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PG, the contents of the sample were found to be adulterated as it contained tartrazine, and added yellow coalter colour matter, the use of which was not permitted in such type of food under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulterated Rules, 1954. On these allegations, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner earned the conviction by the trial Court.

(3.) The appellate Court while meeting with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner also observed that the contents of the reports Ex.PG and PJ have not been specifically put to the petitioner and as such remanded back the case for recording the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 Criminal Procedure Code.