- (1.) This revision has been filed by one Jang Bahadur, who has been convicted under Section 7 with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine Rs. 1000/- by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Chandigarh. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months, while maintaining his sentence of fine, with its default clause. He has now come up in revision.
(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 6.2.1978, Mr. M.K. Sharma Government Food Inspector purchased for analysis 600 grams of mustard oil from the petitioner at his Karyana shop No. 15, Section 23, Chandigarh in the presence of Sohan Lal, out of total stock of 15 kgs., kept by him for sale, on payment of price against receipt, Exhibit P.B. After completing the formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who subsequently found the same to be adulterated.
(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate relied on the prosecution evidence and found that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act. In the revision before me, it is contended that the petitioner was greatly prejudiced by his improper examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The question that was put to the petitioner regarding adulteration was as follows :- "It is an evidence against you that the Government Food Inspector received the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.G. though Local Health Authority, according to which your sample was found to be adulterated and thereafter documents were prepared and given to L.N. Sharma, who filed the complaint Exhibit P.E. in the Court. What have you to say - It was not put to the petitioner as to what was the adulteration for which he was being charged. The incriminating circumstance against the petitioner was that the saponification value and Iodine value of the contents of the sample are 183.5 and 110.7 against maximum prescribed standard of 177 and 110 respectively and that the sample contained an oil soluble yellow coal tar dye whereas it should be free from any added colouring matter. But this fact had not been put to the accused. In such circumstances that examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code not bringing out the actual and real circumstances that were brought out in evidence against the petitioner, the latter could not be convicted of the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act. In this view I am fortified by the decisions of this court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Om Parkash,1969 PunLR 793 and Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana, 1982 2 FAC 331 The revision is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner are hereby set aside. The fine, if realized, shall be refunded to him.;