SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1964

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Suresh Kumar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 457 of 1996,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 13, 2007

The court considered the evidence of food analysis, intention to sell, and the duration of the trial in reaching its decision.

Headnote:

Food Adulteration - Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 16(1)(a)(i)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted for selling butter not meeting prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment period and increasing the fine.

Issues: Discrepancy in fat content analysis, whether the butter was meant for sale, and the duration of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of fat content analysis, the intention to sell the butter, and the duration of the trial in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified, reducing the imprisonment period and increasing the fine.

Judgment

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment/order dated 8/9.1.1996 vide which the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in its default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 7 punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) as well as the judgment dated 12.7.1996 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which he dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 17.3.1989 at 2.30 P.M. Sh. J.S. Chauhan, Government Food Inspector alongwith Dr. T.R. Girdhar and one independent witness Kanwar Dilbag Singh inspected the premises of accused. The accused was found having 3 Kg. butter in 42 plastic packets for public sale. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity demanded the sample of butter by giving him a notice Ex.PA on Form-VII prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, 450 grams butter was purchased, after mixing the whole contents properly and making the same uniform for analysis from the accused after making payment of Rs. 21.80 paise against proper receipt Ex.PB. Thereafter, the butter was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin per 25 mls/gms. was added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles/packets were stoppered tightly and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer Dr. T.R. Girdhar. Bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper. Ends of the paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No. KRD4(H) and signatures of Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra was pasted on each bottle/packet from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed the same with the seal of the Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signatures of Suresh Kumar accused were obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle alongwith memorandum in Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh on 17.3.1989 for analysis, in a sealed packet through railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles of the sample alongwith two copies of memo in Form-VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra on the same day i.e. 17.3.1989. A copy of memorandum in Form-VII and a specimen impression of seals used to seal the sample and packet box were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post vide office receipt No. 1729 dated 18.3.1989. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh after analysing the sample sent his report Ex.PD to the Local Health authority. As per report Ex.PD the sample contains milk fat 76.6% and Curd 3.4% against the minimum and maximum prescribed standards of 80% and 1.5% respectively. The sample was not upto the prescribed standards. As such, prosecution was launched against the accused.

3. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the learned Government Food Inspector for the State and the learned defence counsel, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment/order dated 8/9.1.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urged that as follows from the Public Analysts report Ex.PD, fat contents in the butter were 76.6% and moisture contents were 3.4% whereas according to the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory Ex.PZ, the fat contents of the butter we






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top