UJAGAR SINGH,J - (1.) ON 12.9.1984, Dr. B.D. Dogra, exercising the powers of a Food Inspector, came to the shop of the petitioner on Onkar Nagar and he was found present there. The food Inspector after disclosing his identity and purpose of his visit, found 10 kg. of granted dal of Maha contained in gunny bag, kept for sale, in the shop of the petitioner. Dal weighing 1500 grams was purchased as a sample after making the entire lot of Dal homogenous, for a sum of Rs. 9.75 against receipt Ex.PB, signed by the petitioner and PW Des Raj. The Food Inspector completed the other formalities required for the purpose. After getting the report Ex.PD from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed the complaint Ex.PE. Copy of the report Ex.P1 was sent to the petitioner vide registered letter, postal receipt of which is Ex. P.2. The acknowledgement receipt was not received back.
(2.) AFTER taking cognizance, the petitioner was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act). It is also worth mentioning that the Food Inspector before purchasing the sample of dal had given notice Ex.PA to the petitioner. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. B.D. Dogra and PW2 Iqbal Singh and thereafter it closed its evidence after tendering affidavit Ex.PF of Satpal furnishing the link evidence. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he completely denied the case of the prosecution and took up a specific plea that he had not kept the dal for sale but for consumption of animals. He examined DW1 Des Raj who supports his plea. After considering the facts of the case the trial Court convicted the petitioner under the sale offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence but the Sessions Court declined to interfere and with revision has been filed to challenge the order of conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner.;