IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.216 of 2002 Date of decision : June 1, 2009 Kewal Krishan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment, dated 12th November, 2002, of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby dismissing the appeal of the revision petitioner against his conviction for an offence, under Section 16(1-A)(I)m read with Section 2(i)(a)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the judgment of the trial Court convicting the revision petitioner of the said offence and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, has been upheld. 2. Relevant facts may be stated thus. Petitioner runs a shop in Anaz Mandi, Shimla. On 15th December, 1993, PW-1 Yudhister Lal, Food Inspector, accompanied by his Peon PW-3 Shri Charan Dass, went to his shop and found five or six kilograms Arhar Daal lying in the shop for sale. He purchased Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 600 grams of said Daal and paid Rs.10/-, as price. Daal was divided into three portions. Each part was put into a dry, neat and clean bottle and the bottles were labelled and sealed, in accordance with the procedure. Paper slips were pasted on each of the three bottles. One part of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who, vide report Ex. PJ, opined that the sample contained Tartrazine, a coaltar, the use of which is not permitted in such type of foods. He concluded that the Daal, in question, was adulterated. On receipt of the report, a copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner and he was apprised that he had a right to get another part of the sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory and that he could approach the Magistrate, in whose Court complaint had been filed, for the purpose, by making an application, within ten days of the receipt of that intimation. Petitioner did not exercise that right. 3. Learned trial Magistrate tried the case and finally held the petitioner guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 4. Petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of his conviction, before the Sessions Judge. During the hearing of the appeal, only one point was urged by him, viz. the sanction allegedly accorded by the Local Health Authority had not been properly proved nor was there any evidence, indicating that the said authority had perused the entire record and applied his mind before according the sanction. Learned Sessions Judge has specifically recorded in his judgment that no other point …3… had been urged before him. Point regarding defect in sanction or its having been accorded without application of mind did not find favour with the Sessions Judge and consequently the appeal was dismissed. 5. In the present Revision Petition, as many as thirteen points have been raised. However, it has nowhere been stated in the Revision petition that any of these thirteen points, except the one relating to sanction, had been urged before the Sessions Judge. Now, when all these points had not been urged before the Sessions Judge, in appeal, the same cannot be raised in this Court, which is exercising only revisional power. 6. Learned counsel has urged that it was the Food Inspector, who proved the sanction, Ex. P-7. He says that some other witness should have been examined to prove the sanction, as also the fact that the Sanctioning Authority had before it the entire record of the case and had read that record, before according the sanction. I see no merit in the submission. Food Inspector, namely PW-1 Yudhister Lal, very categorically stated that he had submitted the entire record to the Local Health Authority (Sanctioning Authority) and that it was in his presence that the Sanctioning Authority went through all the documents and accorded sanction Ex. P-7. There does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Food Inspector, to the aforesaid effect. …4… In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present Revision Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. June 1, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J