Arun Kumar Gocl, J. (Oral): This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu dated 21st October. 1995 whereby the conviction and sentence inflicted Union the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu on 9th May, 1995 has been upheld.

2. Petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offence under Section 16(1- A) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). After continent of the trial, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 16(1-A) of the Act for selling adulterated as well as mis-branded Heldi powder (turmeric. In default of payment of fine, petitioner was ordered to under go further simple imprisonment for 6 months. This conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court was upheld in appeal by the appellate Court below, hence this revision.

3. So far the facts relating to PW-1 Food Inspector visiting the premises of (he petitioner on 16th June, 1992 at about 11.50 A.M. as well as taking sample of Biggul Brand Haldi which was stored by the petitioner in his shop premises at Alu-Ground, Manali, meant for sale is concerned, it is not in dispute. After observing the codal formalities of purchase as well as packing and scaling of article of food and its dispatch to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh for analysis and opinion is concerned, it is amply established from the statement of PW-I and is corroborated by the report of Public Analyst dated 23rd, July. 1992 vide Ex.PW-1/H.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since there is infraction of Rule 7(3), Rule 14 and Rule 44(h) of the Rules framed under the Act which has materially prejudiced his client, as such he is entitled to acquittal. Further contention raised in support of this revision was that sanction accorded by the Local Health Authority, vide Ex.PW-I/1 is not according to law and it has not been proved as required under Section 20 of the Act and above all the Chief Medical Officer, who had accorded the same, should have been examined in the face of cross examination directed against the witnesses, particularly, PWs I &

2. Two more submissions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Public Analyst was not sent after launching of prosecution as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, thus a valuable right was denied to the petitioner and secondly for impleading Capital Sales Agency at. Samkhetar Bazar, Mandi rejection of the petitioners application under Section 20-A of the Act was erroneous which has further resulted in causing prejudice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ex.AW-1/A for nil intents and purposes was a warranty within .he meaning of the provisions of (he Act and thus, the article of food i.e Haldi power was established to have been purchased by the petitioner from the said firm.

5. Dealing with the last two points raised first, when a reference is made to the evidence produced on the file, particularly, to Ex.PW-2/A, the memo along with which copy of report of Public Analyst was sent by registered post A.D. to the petitioner as well as the postal receipt and acknowledgment which have been duly produced and proved by the prosecution in this case and further no cross examination having been directed to PW-"1 regarding the acknowledgment Ex.PW-2/B, the plea raised regarding non- dispatch as well as non receipt of the report of Public Analyst has no basis and the same is accordingly rejected.

6. So far as the plea regarding rejection of application under Section 20-A of the Act is concerned, against when a reference is made to Ex. AW-1 /A, it is clear that the article of food, viz. Biggul Brand Haldi which was purchased by PW-1 for the purposes of analysis from the petitioner is not connected with the said bill. It only speaks to Haldi and nothing else. In this view of the matter the point raised by &e learn