B.S. Yadav, J. - (1.) The present petitioner, Roop Lal was convicted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a line of Rs. 1000.00. It had also been ordered that in default of payment of fine the defaulter would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision.
(2.) The prosecution story as gathered from the evidence is that on 27th Feb., 1980 at 10.00 A.M. P.W. 1 Dr. Rajinder Singh, who in those days was invested with the powers of Food Inspector, accompanied by P.W. 2 Dr. Harwant Singh, went to the shop of the petitioner situated in Amritsar. The petitioner was found in possession of 10 Kgs. of Khoya for sale. After disclosing his identity, Dr. Rajinder Singh purchased 750 grams of Khoya against payment of Rs. 6.75. He divided the purchased Khoya into 3 equal parts and each part was put into a dry and clean bottle. 24 drops of formaline were added to each bottle. Each bottle was converted into a sealed packet in accordance with the formalities prescribed under the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules). He also followed the due procedure for sending one part of the sample to the Public Analyst. A copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the packet were sent separately to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PD opined that the sample contained 11.89% milk fat against the minimum prescribed standard of 20%. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed in the Court by the Food Inspector for prosecution of the petitioner.
(3.) At the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he never dealt in Khoya and on the other hand he used to purchase Barji from the market in wholesale and sold it in retail and on the day of occurrence he had no Khoya at his shop nor any sample was taken in his presence. He was forced to sign the papers.;