JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. These appeals are against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20th November, 2000. By this Judgment a number of appeals, filed by the appellants herein, have been dismissed. All these appeals are against the said common Judgment. They are based on almost similar facts and raise common question of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common Judgment.

4. It must be mentioned that against the Judgment dated 20th November, 2000 other SLPs had also been filed before this Court. Those were dismissed leaving the questions of law open.

5. In this Judgment the facts in Criminal Appeal No ......... of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1617 of 2001) are being set out. The facts of the other Appeals need not be set out as they are more or less similar.

6. On 29th August, 1988 the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Lal Mirch Kutti from M/s. Vashno Panjabu Dhaba, H-1, Chander Nagar, Delhi. The Respondent was the person who had sold Lal Mirch to the Food Inspector. The sample purchased was divided into three equal parts and put into bottles which were sealed. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who, by his