Criminal Misc. No.466-MA of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.466-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 9.9.2008 Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus Lachman Dass ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh Mr. N.S. Bawa, Advocate for respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The Union Territory, Chandigarh is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.2.2007 vide which the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of respondent/accused in a prosecution launched by the former under Section 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 32 (a) to (f) and (i) PFA Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act. The prosecution allegation was that the Food Inspector/complainant purchased six unbranded packets of Zira of 100 grams each from the accused against cash payment of Rs.48/- 'for the purpose of analysis and examination'. The Food Inspector made that purchase by visiting the factory premises of the respondent/accused on 7.9.2000 at about 12.30 P.M. The sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst for examination and it was found to be misbranded as the product had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 PFA Criminal Misc. No.466-MA of 2007 -2- *** Rules, 1955. The respondent/accused raised a precise plea that “the sample was taken from the factory premises which was a processing unit and the food articles were still being packed and labels were yet to be affixed. However, the samples were taken before the label could be affixed. Moreover, the samples was drawn only for the purposed of analysis and not for the purpose of looking into violations of Rule 32. Accused was possessing the food article i.e. Zira in question in the processing unit and same was not in a condition fit for sale at the stage the samples were drawn”. Learned Trial Magistrate, made the following observations to draw sustenance for the view, he had obtained:- “13. The above said admission of PW1 Balbir Singh, Food Inspector shows that accused was carrying on the processing work in the factory situated in his residence and packing process was going on when the food articles was purchased. It is not the case of PW1 Balbir Singh, Food Inspector that accused was selling the food articles in the processing unit when he visited the same. There is also no other evidence to show that customers used to come to the processing factory of the accused for purchasing the articles. The conclusion, therefore, is that it was a processing unit where species were being packed and not a place meant for sale of any article. In holding so, I have relieved upon 1980 (1) RAC 129 State of Maharashtra Vs. Vihswanathappa and others. 14. In the spot memo as well as in the Form VII, it has been mentioned that the sample has been drawn for the purpose of Criminal Misc. No.466-MA of 2007 -3- *** analysis from the Public Analyst whereas in the complaint, it has been mentioned that the sample was drawn for analysis as well as examination. The examination is for the purpose of violations of Rule 32 PTA Rules. The sample was not found to be adulterated and it was declared to be misbranded on account of violations of Rule 32(a) to (f) and (i) PFA Rules, 1955. As already discussed in the proceeding paragraphs, the sample was drawn from the processing unit and accused who appears to be an illiterate person handed over the same to the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis. The processing work was still going on and labels were yet to be affixed as admitted by the Food Inspector while appearing as PW1. Since the sample was drawn only for the purpose of analysis and that too from a processing unit, accused cannot be held liable for violations of Rule 32(a) to (f) and (i) PFA Rules, 1955 as processing work was still going on.” Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not been able to persuade the Court to take a contrary view. I find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file and there is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. September 09, 2008 (S. D. ANAiND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.466-MA of 2007 -4- ***