209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:23.03.2026 Naresh Kumar …Petitioner vs.

State through Govt. Food …Respondent Inspector, Narwana Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr.Vishal Sharda, Advocate, 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 06.09.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind and the judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 25.03.2004 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- alongwith default stipulation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Dina Nath Gupta, the then Food Inspector, Narwana alongwith Dr. Om Partap, Medical Officer, CHC Uchana had inspected the premises of accused Naresh Kumar son of Dalip Chand Aggarwal, Karyana Merchant, Krishna Gali, Narwana on 27.12.1996 at

5.45 P.M. while he was in possession of three bags of tea containing 30 kg in each bag for public sale. The Government Food Inspector served notice upon him and purchased 375 grams of tea for Rs. 23/- after stirring and mixing the whole contents properly. He divided it into three equal parts and kept and preserved it as per rules provided under the P.F.A Act. One part of the sample was sent to public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh for analysis and the other two sealed bottles were deposited with local Health authority, Narwana. The sample was analyzed by Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, who opined that the sample contains iron fillings 11614 PPM against the maximum limit of 250 PPM. On receiving the report, prosecution was launched against the accused by the Government Food Inspector and he was also served through registered post by the Local Health Authority, Narwana. On notice of complaint, accused/ appellant appeared in the Court and has exercised his right to send the second part of sample for re-analysis from central Food Laboratory, Pune, which was also found to be adulterated as the sample contained total 16370 PPM iron filling and hence, it was opined to be unfit for human consumption.

3. After pre-charge evidence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

However, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. After charge evidence, the prosecution examined Dina Nath Gupta, Retired GFI as PW-1 and Ram Babu, Clerk, LHA as PW-2 and thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed.

5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. However, he stated that he was falsely involved in the present case and was innocent. The petitioner chose not to lead any defence evidence.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction, however, some leniency may be shown towards him, while awarding the sentence to him. Even though, the petitioner has not challenged the judgments of conviction, still, this Court has examined the case on merits.

7. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner does not deserve any concession regarding sentence and the present revision petition be dismissed.

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

9. In the present case, the prosecution had examined PW1, Dina Nath, Retired Food Inspector, who had obtained the sample from the possession of the petitioner and proved the allegations as levelled in the complaint. Even PW-2, Ram Babu, Clerk of Local Health Authority, al