Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the conviction to the petitioner under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for which offence he was sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo four months Rigorous Imprisonment.
(2.) Mr. Chhibbar, has very fairly not contested the recovery of the atta from the dhaba of the petitioner on the relevant day. In fact, his sole contention is that from the material on the record, it could be inferred that the recovered atta remained un-anaylsed for a period of about 24 days and during this long period the possibility of some insects (susris) having infested the atta could not be excluded. He has placed reliance upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in Makand Lal Vs. The State, 1975 (1) F.A.G. 211, wherein the accused was given the benefit of doubt on the ground that the atta had remained un-examined and unanalysed for 12 or 13 days. Indeed, in that case the recovery pertained to the month of July which is a rainy season, but no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf that such insect infestation could not have taken place during the month of Feb., as in the present case. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to rule out this possibility by producing expert evidence on the file, which has not been done. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
(3.) The Revision Petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is already on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Petition accepted.;