Decided on January 02,1991

OM PRAKASH Respondents


BHAWANI SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jogindernagar in Criminal Case No. 29 -3/78, 89 -3/78 and 62 -3/78, decided on 30 -9 -1986. It is a case under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter for short 'the Act').
(2.) THE facts, briefly, are that the Food Inspector Ram Chand Barwal visited the grocery shop, run under the name and style of M/s. Balak Ram Shori Lal on 25 -4 -1978 and after disclosing his identity and his intention to purchase Sarson oil for analysis, sample to the extent of 750 grams was purchased against the payment of Rs. 6.85 p. It was divided equally into three parts and then poured it in three dry and clean bottles, which were corked, labelled, sealed and wrapped according to the procedure. One of the samples, out of the three, was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis. The remaining two, were deposited with the local health authority. After analysis, the public analyst reported that the specification value of the contents of sample was 180.3 against the prescribed standard of 168 to 170. Accordingly, the prosecution was launched against the accused who denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced two witnesses in support of the charge and also placed reliance on some documents. The matter appeared for the statement of accused under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and it was during this time that he moved an application under Section 20A of the Act for impleading firm 'M/s. Balak Ram and Sons, Pathankot' as accused, since, according to the accused sample article was purchased from this firm against voucher dated 17 -4 -1973 through order of 29 -3 -1984. When this firm was arrayed as accused, the matter came before this Court at the instance of this firm and this Court allowed the prayer with the result that the order of trial Court impleading this firm as an accused was set aside, however, the accused was permitted to adduce evidence before the trial Court in support of his claim that the article was purchased from this firm. At this time also, the accused did not lead any specific evidence. After hearing the parties to the case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted since there was no compliance of provisions of Section 10(7) and Section 20 of the Act. The result was that the accused was acquitted of the charge, hence this appeal by the State.
(3.) THE matter was examined with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. The record of the case was also seen in order to see whether the conclusions of the trial Court in this case are legally sustainable or call for any change.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.