213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:23.03.2026 Balwan …Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 29.07.2006 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.1997 at 8:30 a.m., the petitioner was intercepted by K.K. Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector (for short 'the GFI') along with Dr. G.S. Chajjad, District Malaria Officer at Gohana Road. The petitioner was found in possession of 15 kgs. of mixed milk for public sale contained in a drum. The GFI after serving a notice in writing in Form- VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') demanded a sample from petitioner and after mixing the milk, purchased 750 mlts. of milk by paying a sum of Rs.9/-. The sample, so, purchased was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry, clean and empty bottles. Two drops of 40% formalin per 25 mlts. were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stoppered at their neck, sealed with the seal of Medical officer, labeled and wrapped in strong thick paper and the ends of paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing code No. RT/CS/F11/F129 and signature of the Local Health Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Rohtak was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seals of Medical Officer and the GFI at the spot. Thumb impression of petitioner was obtained in such a manner that both the paper slip and the wrapper on each sealed bottle, carry a part of his thumb impression. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet through railway parcel. Remaining two sample bottles along with two copies of memo in Form-VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 01.08.1997, vide receipt No. 3-4 in another sealed pocket. A copy of the memo in Form-VII and specimen of seals used to seal the sample and the parcel box were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh by registered post, vide Post office Receipt No. 2258 dated 01.8.1997. As the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down in the Act and the Rules, therefore, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner.

3. After pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was ordered to be charge- sheeted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. After charge evidence, the prosecution examined three witnesses. The prosecution examined K.K. Sharma, Government Food Inspector as PW-1, who supported the contents of the complaint in the present case. He produced Ex.PA notice given by him to the petitioner. Ex.PB receipt regarding purchase of milk. Ex.PC spot memo. Ex.PD receipt regarding sending Form VII to Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh through registered post. Ex.PE report of Public Analyst, Ex.PF complaint and Ex.PF/1 report of CFL. The prosecution further examined Dr. C.S.Chajjad as PW-2, who also supported the testimony of PW1, K.K. Sharma, GFI. The prosecution further examined PW-3, Rohtash Kumar, Clerk of Local Health Authority, who deposed that as per the record, two s