JUDGMENT :

M.R. Verma, J. –

1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 14.2.1995 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin convicting and sentencing the petitioner/convict/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) under Section 16 (1-A) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that on 23.12.1989, Food Inspector, I.D. Verina (PW-1) visited the shop of the accused at Village Sihal where the accused had kept 40 kgs. of "Shakar" in a bag for sale. After disclosing his identity PW-1 expressed his intention to take a sample of the "Shakar" and served the accused with a notice of such intention and purchased 600 gms. of "Shakar" as sample on payment of Rs. 3/- as price thereof. The sample was then dealt with in accordance with the Rules and one part of the sample so purchased alongwith Form- 7 was sent to Public Analyst Chandigarh and the remaining two samples were deposited with Local Health Authority. On analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst it was found adulterated because it contained acid coaltar dye of orange shade which is not a permitted coaltar for colour. On receipt of the report Ext. PW-1/L from the Public Analyst, a copy of the report was sent to the accused by the Local Health Authority vide Ext.PW-2/A and also directed PW-1 vide Ext. PW-l/K to place the case papers before the Chief Medical Officer for his perusal and consent to prosecute the accused. The Chief Medical Officer after perusal of the relevant documents gave his written consent Ext. PW-1/N for prosecution of the accused and thereafter PW-1 filed a complaint PW- I/O against the accused.

3. The learned trial Magistrate initially proceeded to try the case as a summons case and put the accusations to the accused and proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused and his defence. However, at a later stage the complainant brought it to the notice of the trial Court that the offence committed by the accused was punishable with imprisonment which could extend to six years, therefore, the offence is triable as a warrant case and ought to have been tried as a warrant case. Agreeing with the submission, the trial Court framed a charge against the accused under Section 16(l)(a) read with Section 7 (1) of the Act on the basis of the evidence already recorded and relied for the purpose by the complainant. After the framing of the charge complainant was given opportunity to lead evidence but no fresh/further evidence was led and to prove the charge, the complainant relied on the evidence already recorded. The accused however was examined afresh under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and he led fresh defence evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 16 (1)(a) read with Section 7 (1) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur who dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition by the aggrieved accused.

5. Since the accused did not put in appearance on 30.7.2003 when this petition was duly notified for final hearing, therefore, the petitioner having failed to avail the opportunity to address arguments the State was heard in the matter and judgment was reserved. However, on a subsequent date before pronouncement of the judgment an application was made for the petitioner to give him an opportunity of being heard in the matter and his application was allowed vide order dated 27.8.2003 and