S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) MOHAN Lal petitioner was tried and convicted under -Section 16(1)(a)-(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Its. 1,000/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on May 8, 1985. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, upheld his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in revision.
(2.) THE prosecution allegations are that Dr. A.P. Kansal, Government Food Inspector visited the shop, of the petitioner situated at Sanauri Gate, Patiala and purchased 600 grams of turmeric powder from him for analysis in the presence of Dr. S. P. Sharma, who had accompanied the Food Inspector. After completing the formalities, a sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found the same to be adulterated as it contained ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid to the extent of 1.94% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.5%. The contents also contained 1.20% of grit. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence. The only point raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is not a scintilla of evidence on record to show that before taking the sample of turmeric powder, the same was made homogeneous by the Food Inspector or by his associate. There appears to be merit in the submission of the learned counsel. On the point, the Food Inspector, has stated at the trial that the turmeric powder was examined thoroughly and thereafter it was put into three dry and clean bottles in equal parts but it is nowhere stated, by him that the turmeric powder was made homogeneous by him. It is necessary for the Food Inspector to take the sample in such a manner that the sample may be true representative. It is no answer that it is for the vendor to give a proper sample. The manner in which the sample, has been taken by the Food Inspector, it cannot be said to be proper one and the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.
(3.) THE result is that the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Fine if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.;