IRENDAR KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner alongwith respondents No.2 and 3 are being prosecuted under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the 'Act) for selling adulterated 'Atta' to the Food Inspector, complainant on 23.8.1989. The present petitioner has been summoned after application under Section 20 -A of the said Act was allowed.

(2.) ACCORDING to complaint, the sample of 'Atta' was taken from the premises of M/s Sood & Company at Rohru in accordance with the procedure. Respondent No. 2 being one of the owners of the said concern was made accused along with the concern, respondent No. 3. According to the complaint Deep Chand, Respondent No.2 disclosed that he had purchased the said 'Atta' from M/s Irender Kumar Sushil Kumar 12, Card Road, Shimla vide bill No. 16647 dated 11.7.1989. According to the complaint, one of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat alongwith memo Form VII in a sealed packet through Shri Balak Ram along with impression of seal. Remaining two parts were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Shimla.

(3.) THE main point stressed in the present petition has been that there was absolutely no occasion for the Local Health Authority to have sent there sample to Public Analyst, Chandigarh under Section 13 (2E) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as the said provisions were not legally available to the Local Health Authority in the present case. It has been submitted that in case the report of the Public Analyst, Chandigarh is excluded against the present petitioner and other co -accused, there does not remain any evidence connecting all the accused persons with the selling of adulterated 'Atta' in favour of Food Inspector. There appeals to be some genuine grievance put forth by the petitioners in this behalf.