PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2020-7-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 30,2020

PREM CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. SAT SARUP SHARMA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.V.RAMANA, J. - (1.)The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.492-DBA of 1996, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant herein and convicted him for the offences under Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, 'the Act') punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and selling it without licence.
(2.)The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.8.1982, at about 11 A.M., the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the shop of the accused appellant in the presence of the witnesses and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in his shop. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder out of which one sample was made and then that sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst dated 07.09.1982, revealed that the sample was found to contain four living meal worms and two live weevils. The trial court vide order dated 31.08.1995 acquitted the appellant. However, upon appeal, the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009, convicted the appellant under Section 2 (la) (f) of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month under Section 16 (lA) of the Act. The High Court further convicted the appellant for offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act for selling Haldi Powder without licence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days.
(3.)The counsel for the appellant submitted that High Court upturns Trial Court judgment of acquittal into one of conviction after 27 years from the date of incident and 14 years after the date of trial court judgment. The counsel vehemently put forth that, the report of the public analyst no where mentions that the sample was either 'insect infested' or was 'unfit for human consumption'. It was lastly contended that, the appellant went unrepresented in the High Court as the advocate representing the appellant did not appear in Court.
;


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