Crl. Revision No. 2468 of 2013 (O&M)

-1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Revision No. 2468 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 7.8.2013.

Sham Sunder

........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Jasmandeep, Advocate

for the petitioner.

.....

SABINA, J.

Petitioner had faced the trial qua commission of

offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954 ('IPC'' for short) in a complaint filed by

the State. The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated

12.8.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the

petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the

Act. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of his

conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal. The

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2013 dismissed the

appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by

the petitioner.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner,

I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves

dismissal.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant

Singh Gurpreet

2013.08.14 14:26

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

chandigarh

Crl. Revision No. 2468 of 2013 (O&M)

-2 -

inspected the shop of the petitioner and he was found in

possession of 150 bottles of one litre each of mustard oil for

public sale. Sample of mustard oil was drawn from the

bottles. As per the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, it

was found that the samples did not conform to the prescribed

standards as laid down in the rules. Petitioner exercised his

rights under Section 13(2) of the Act. As per the report of the

Central Food Laboratory, Mysore also it was found that the

sample did not conform to the standards laid down for

mustard oil under the provisions of the Act and Rules thereof.

It was opined that the sample was turbid and the Bellier

Turbidity temperature value exceeds the maximum standard

limit.

Thus, in the present case, the bottles of mustard oil

which were found in possession of the petitioner for public

sale, were found to be not upto the standards as prescribed

under the Act and rules thereof. Learned senior counsel for

the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of

evidence by the Courts below. In these circumstances, the

Courts below rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of

the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of

the Act.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA)

JUDGE

August 07, 2013

Gurpreet

Singh Gurpreet

2013.08.14 14:26

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

chandigarh