Revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Refusal to provide food sample with threats constitutes prevention under PFA; person present in shop liable regardless of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant, Food Inspector, filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) and Rules framed thereunder. It was asserted that the complainant was appointed as a Food Inspector for District Kangra. He inspected the shop of the accused Daljeet Singh, on 19.08.2010 at about 3:30 p.m., which was running in the name and style of M/s Mukesh Confectionery, village and Post Office Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The accused had kept many food articles like biscuits, toffees and cold drinks, etc. in his shop for sale to the general public. The complainant demanded the food license for the year 2009-2010 and asked him for a sample of the biscuit. The accused failed to show the Food License and refused to provide a sample of the biscuit. He abused the complainant and pushed him out of the shop. He also threatened to beat the complainant in case he did not leave the shop. The complainant prepared a spot memo and asked the accused to sign it. The accused refused to sign it. The complainant obtained signatures of Raghubir Singh and Ashish Raina (PW-3). The complainant filed an application before the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to seek the written consent to launch the prosecution. The CMO, Kangra, H.P., went through the record and issued the consent (Ext.PW-1/C). Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7(v) of the PFA Act and Rule 50 of the PFA Rules.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(c) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the PFA Act and Rule 50 of the PFA Rules, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined three witnesses to prove his case. Manjeet Singh (PW-1) is the complainant. Tej Ram (PW-2) proved the written consent. Ashish Raina (PW-3) is an eyewitness.

5. The accused, in his statement, recoded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the complainant was posted as Food Inspector, he had visited the shop of the accused on 19.08.2010 at about 3:30 p.m. and demanded the Food License. He claimed that he had not refused to show the license to the complainant; rather, he had stated that the license was displayed in the shop and could be seen by the complainant. He also admitted that the complainant had demanded a sample of biscuits. He denied the rest of the complainant’s case. He told the complainant that he (the accused) was sitting in the place of his son, who had gone to take a meal. He examined Dr S.K. Gautam (DW-1) to prove his de