STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GURVINDER SINGH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
BHAWANI SINGH,J. -
(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the acquittal of the accused by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1986, decided on 25.3.1987. The accused was proceeded against for offence under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was found guilty by the trial Court, so sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
(2.) THE facts, briefly, are that on 30.12.1983, Food Inspector, Shri S.C. Sharma, visited the Karyana shop of the accused in Chauhata Bazar, Mandi. After disclosing his identity, purchase of 600 grams of Makroni was made for the purposes of analysis. The food article was divided into three parts and then transfered in three packets which were closed, wrapped and sealed in accordance with law and then one of the parts thereof was sent to Public Analyst for analysis while the other two were deposited with the Local Health Authority. At the time of the lifting of the sample, the accused had disclosed to the Food Inspector that the food article in question was purchased from M/s Rakesh Kumar Anil Kumar of Delhi against a bill issued by that Firm. On analysis, it was found that it contained total ash 6.74% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.0% which was due to the presence of 6.11% salt. The contents also contained Tartrazin, a coaltar food colour, whereas it should have been free from any colouring matter. The sample was, thus, found misbranded and adulterated by the Public Analyst.
After obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical Officer under Section 20 of the Act, the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the accused as well as the Firm concerned. Notices under Section 13(2) of the Act were sent and after the close of the trial, the Firm, M/s Rakesh Kumar Anil Kumar were acquitted of the charge while the present accused was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.
(3.) THE accused challenged the trial Court court decision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, where he has been acquitted, hence this appeal by the State.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.