- (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment and order of Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, maintaining in appeal the convictions of the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and l6 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the sentences imposed thereunder.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that Government Food Inspector Abhey Ram accompanied by Dr. S. P. Mimani inspected the shop of general merchandise of the petitioner at Fatehabad. The petitioner was found storing for sale dal chana. The Government Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of dal chana from the petitioner in accordance with the rules. The purchased dal chana was divided into three parts. One part was sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that the dal chana was adulterated. On that basis, the petitioner was sent up for trial on two counts; firstly on the count that the sample was adulterated and secondly that he was selling the commodity without a licence. The petitioner exercising his right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act got sent the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. This report then became the basis of prosecution because foreign material was found in the sample. It is on that basis the petitioner was convicted and sentenced.
(3.) AT the outset, it need be cleared that when the accused had exercised the right of having the second sample examined from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the certificate issued by the Director under Sub-section (2-B) of Section 13 of the Act supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. In effect it means that the adulteration as reflected in the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory would be the basis of the charge. Conversely, if no adulteration is reported in the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the prosecution cannot fall back upon the report of the Public Analyst.;