HARI OIL AND DAL MILLS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-16
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 05,2013

M/s. Hari Oil and Dal Mills Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttaranchal And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 7(16) of the Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act), whereby M/s. Hari Oil & Dall Mills was found guilt of the said offence and has been directed to pay fine of rupees twenty thousand. After dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court on 28.11.2003, the fine has been deposited by M/s. Hari Oil & Dall Mills (revisionist). However, this revision has been preferred before this Court. Heard Learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE main stress given by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was not duly sent or, even if it was sent, the same was not received by the revisionist. So, the impugned judgments of the Courts below are vitiated as both the Courts below have not looked into this legal aspect of the matter. On perusal of the entire controversy in question, it transpires that one Dinesh Kumar was the retailer from whom the sample of oil was taken by the Food Inspector and it was sent to the laboratory for its analysis. Dinesh Kumar disclosed that he had purchased the same from M/s. Mohan Lal and Company, who was the authorized dealer -cum -commission agent of M/s. Hari Oil & Dall Mills (manufacturer). M/s. Mohan Lal and Company, based at Dehradun, informed the prosecution that their nominee was Subhash Chandra, who was made the accused No. 3 before the trial court and M/s. Hari Oil & Dall Mills, based at Hapur (U.P.), was impleaded as accused No. 4.
(3.) AS regards the sending of notice is concerned, Ex. Ka -8 and Ka -7 are on the record, which were sent by the Food Inspector to M/s. Hari Oil & Dall Mills by the registered post. The same were also got received to their addressee, and the addressee or his agent received the copy of the same endorsing the word 'received' making his illegible signature at the bottom of those letters.;


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