Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) Chuni Lal son of Tulsi Rain was convicted under section 16(l)(a)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and was sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further Rigorous for two months. The appeal of the petitioner heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, was dismissed. By means of the present revision petition, the petitioner impugns his Conviction and sentence as stated above.
(2.) Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has made ; (wo submissions which may be considered. It is contended that out of the three witnesses, all of whom are official, two of them, namely Dr. R.S. Yadav, P.W. 1 and Raj Kumar, P.W. 3 did not identify the petitioner at the trial. Consequently, the case against the petitioner is not free from doubt. There is indeed substance in this argument. The other submission of the learned counsel is that even though the raiding party had particularly gone to raid the Karyana shop of the petitioner, they did not associate themselves with any non-official and independent witness of the locality and this fact has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Here again the contention is not without force. Apart from this, the charge against the petitioner, for which he has been convicted and sentenced, is that he had refused to supply the sample of Zeera required from him by the Government Food Inspector. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had gone away on the pretext of urinating and did not return. This would not amount to refusal to deliver the sample. In view of the circumstances, the petitioner is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt, which is afforded to him.
(3.) The revision petition is allowed and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside, as also the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The fine, if paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.;