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

State through Govt. Food …Respondent Inspector, Panipat Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr.Vipul Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, 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 29.09.2008 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) 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 on 15.04.1998, Shri K.K. Sharma, Govt. Inspector, Panipat (hereinafter called as GFI) alongwith Dr. Tejinder Kharbanda inspected the premises of appellant and found him selling, inter alia, red chilly powder. GFI purchased 600 grams chilly powder as sample against proper receipt. Sample was divided into three equal parts. Above said parts of sample were duly sealed as per law. One part of sample was forwarded to Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis. Report of Public Analyst, Haryana indicated that sample was adulterated. Thereupon, GFI launched prosecution against the appellant through present complaint under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

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. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Mr. K.K.Sharma as PW-1, Muni Ram, Steno as PW-2 and Dr. T.K. Kharbanda as PW-3 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. However, he stated that he was falsely involved in the present case and was innocent. In defence evidence, the petitioner examined Gaje Singh, DW-1 as witness.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgments 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, Mr. K.K. Sharma, GFI was examined as PW1, who supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution further examined PW-2 Muni Ram, who is an official of Chief Medical Officer, Panipat and proved the dispatch of copy of report of Public Analyst, vide letter (Ex.PX) and postal receipt (Ex.PY). Dr. T.K. Kharbanda, PW3 also supported the testimony of PW1, Mr.K.K. Sharma, GFI. In the present case, PW-1, Mr. K.K. Sharma has taken the sample after duly stirring the chilli powder and there was no evidence to show that anything was added by the petitioner with chilli powder. Even PW-2, Muni Ram had duly proved the dispatch of the said report to the petitioner by forwarding letter (Ex.PX) and postal receipt (Ex.PY). Thus, the dispatch of the report also stood proved on record. Still further, there is no evidence to show that the official witnesses in the present case were inimical towards the present petitioner. Even otherwise, I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts and find no infirmity or illegality in the