IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.61 of 2003 Date of decision : July 28, 2009 Manohar Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction for offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the said offence, for allegedly selling adulterated Chili powder. Initially, he was convicted by the trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 27th December, 2000. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, in the Sessions Court. His appeal has been dismissed, vide judgment dated 4th March, 2003. He has assailed both the judgments, by means of the present Revision Petition. 2. Facts, which led to the trial and conviction of the petitioner, may be stated. On 1st August, 1992, Food Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Inspector, Subhash Chand Sharma (PW-1), visited the business premises of the petitioner at Nurpur, in Kangra District, and found Chili powder lying in a bag. The powder was meant for sale to the public. Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and expressed desire, in writing, to take sample of the said Chili powder. Thereafter, he purchased 450 grams of Chili powder, for Rs.13/-. The purchased quantity of powder was divided into three parts. Each part was put into a separate dry and clean bottle. The bottles were corked, labeled, secured by paper seal and also in a twine, both from top to bottom and across. Memo. of the proceedings, conducted on the spot, was prepared. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Public Analyst gave the opinion that the sample was adulterated, inasmuch as it contained oil soluble coal tar dye, which was not permissible and was also injurious to health and the non-volatile ether extract was below the prescribed limit of 12 per cent. On receipt of the said report, Food Inspector approached the Local Health Authority to accord sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. On receipt of such sanction, complaint was filed. Local Health Authority was apprised of the filing of the complaint. Upon that, the Local Health Authority notified to the petitioner that he had the right to get another part of the sample analysed from the …3… Central Food Laboratory, by approaching the Judicial Magistrate, in whose Court complaint has been filed. Petitioner exercised this right. One of the two samples, deposited with the Local Health Authority, was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. Director of the said Laboratory, vide report Ex. PW-1/P, reported that the sample was adulterated on account of (a) moisture content exceeding the maximum specified limit of 12.0% by weight, (b) the amount of non volatile ether extract content falling below the minimum specified limit of 12.0% by weight, (c) it being not free from the presence of added synthetic pink and orange shade oil soluble colouring matter, and (d) it being not free from the presence of extraneous matter identified as wheat starch. 3. Food Inspector Subhash Chand Sharma, examined himself as PW-1, and also produced an independent witness, namely PW-3 Som Dutt, who was present, at the time of taking of the sample. 4. Food Inspector testified that he had taken the sample in the manner, aforesaid, and had sent one part to the Public Analyst and on receipt of his report, Ex. PW-1/K, filed the complaint. He also proved various other documents. PW-3 Som Dutt corroborated him. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that the bag containing …4… Chili powder was lying in the store portion of the building and not the shop part of it. 5. Petitioner took the plea that the Chili powder, in question, had been withdrawn from the shop and removed to the store, for being returned to the supplier and this fact was brought to the notice of the Food Inspector and despite that he took the sample. Learned trial Court did not accept the defence plea. It believed Food Inspector’s version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as aforesaid. Appeal filed by the petitioner to the Sessions Court has been dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chili powder, in question, was not meant for sale and that this plea is proved by Food Inspector’s own witness, namely PW-3 Som Dutt, who, in the cross-examination, admitted that the bag was lying in the store and not in the shop. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. 8. PW-3 Som Dutt though stated in the cross- examination that the bag was lying in the store, this part of his statement does not appear to be correct, being contrary to the contents of spot memo, Ex. PW-1/C, which is duly signed by him. As per this memo, Chili powder was kept for …5… sale. Further, even though suggestions were thrown to PW- 1 Subhash Chand Sharma, Food Inspector, and PW-3 Som Dutt that the Chili powder was not meant for sale and the bag was lying in the store, in his own statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner did not take such a plea. He simply stated that he had been falsely implicated, on account of political pressure. He did not explain it, nor did he put any suggestion to the Food Inspector or PW-3 Som Dutt, indicating that there was any political pressure on the Food Inspector to falsely implicate him. 9. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioner, by his counsel, is that the Food Inspector did not know how he took out the sample powder out of the bag, that is to say by hand or by use of Bambu. Statement of the Food Inspector was recorded in the year 1999. Sample was taken in the year 1992. He was not supposed to be recollecting, after seven years, whether the powder was taken out by means of hand or a Bambu. 10. Another submission made is that the bottles were not clean, as testified by PW-3 Som Dutt. Learned counsel drew my attention to that part of the statement of PW-3 Som Dutt, in which he stated that the bottles, which were taken out by the Food Inspector from his bag, were dirty and that he cleaned them, before putting the powder into them. …6… Statement of the witness does not mean that the bottles were dirty, when the sample powder was put into them. The witness categorically stated that the same had been cleaned by the Food Inspector when the sample stuff was put into them. 11. No other submission has been made. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present Revision Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 28, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J