230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:24.03.2026 Suresh Kumar …Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. J.S Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2011, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced as under:-

2. Dr.Ashok Monga, Food Inspector filed a complaint under section

16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against petitioner Suresh Kumar on the allegations that on 23.04.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., he inspected the premises of Sheenu Tea Stall situated in street No.5, Partap Nagar, Bathinda and found the petitioner sitting on the counter of the said shop.

He tried to join independent witness from the spot, but no body agreed. On inspection of the shop, he found that 30 bottles of fanta each containing 200 ml. of carbonated sweetened water were kept in the refrigerator for sale of human consumption. Complainant after disclosing his identity demanded the sample of Fanta from the accused after serving a notice upon him on Form VI, prescribed under the Act. Complainant purchased six bottles each containing 200 ml of Fanta from the petitioner against payment of Rs.60/- for analysis. The purchased sample was divided into three equal parts of two bottles each. Each part was labeled and wrapped in a strong thick paper. The ends of the paper were folded and pasted with gum. Then a slip signed by local Health Authority Bathinda bearing No.24780 Code No. NB 058-09 was wrapped on the wrapper on each packet in such a way that it went from bottom to top. The ends of the slip were pasted with gum and then each packet was secured by means of a thick strong twine and was sealed according to the Rules with seal bearing impression of the MAK. Signatures of the petitioner were obtained on each packet in such a manner that these were partly on the wrapper and partly on the slip. Complainant also signed each packet. One sealed packet of sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh in a sealed cover along with copy of Form VII bearing seal impression MAK, used to seal the sample and a copy of Form-VII bearing seal to impression MAK was also sent the public analyst in a separate sealed cover through Shri Darshan Singh of the office of Civil Surgeon, Bathinda. Remaining two parts of the sample along with three copies of Form VII were deposited in the office of local Health Authority, Bathinda. The spot memo was prepared. Report of the Public Analyst was received through the Local Health Authority,Bathinda and it is admissible under Section

13 (5) of the Act, indicating that the expired sample has been taken. Therefore, Suresh Kumar, petitioner had committed an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i).

Hence,the complaint was filed on 16.11.2009.

3. After pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was ordered to be charge- sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Alteration Act, 1954.

4. After charge, the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine all the witnesses examined by the complainant in pre-charge evidence, but no other evidence was led by the complainant.

5. After the closure of the evidence, the state