IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.678 of 2002 Reserved on : July 14, 2009 Decided on : July 16, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Kuldeep Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 22nd June, 2006, of Sessions Court, whereby respondent Kuldeep Singh, who had been convicted and sentenced for an offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) & (ii) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 14th May, 1996, has been acquitted, by accepting the appeal and setting aside the aforesaid judgment, dated 14th May, 1996. 2. Respondent runs a shop in the name of Minhas General Store in a village of Ghumarwin Tehsil of District Bilaspur. On 5th April, 1993, Food Inspector G.R. Puri (PW-1), accompanied by PW-3 Dila Ram, his Peon, went to the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - aforesaid store of the respondent. He found 60 packets of biscuits lying in the store. He purchased six packets and divided them into three parts of two packets each. All the three parts were wrapped, secured in twine and sealed separately, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that the biscuits were misbranded, inasmuch as the month and the year of manufacture was not mentioned on the labels and also they were adulterated, because acidity of extracted fat content was in excess of the minimum prescribed limit of 1.5 per cent, it being 3.27 per cent. 3. Complaint was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, after obtaining necessary sanction from the Local Health Authority. On behalf of the complainant, three witnesses were examined. They were the complainant himself, namely G.R. Puri (PW-1), his Peon Dila Ram (PW-3) and an independent witness Rattan Singh (PW-4). Respondent took the plea that he sells only haberdashery articles and no food item at his shop. He claimed that the biscuits had been kept at his shop by his friend Raghubir, who purchased the same from some other shop and were to be carried by him to his residence, situated nearby, in connection with some function. 4. Learned trial Court disbelieved the defence plea and convicted and sentenced the respondent. He went in appeal to - 3 - the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. PW-1 G.R. Puri, in his cross-examination, admitted that respondent sells haberdashery articles and stationery at his shop, though at the same time he stated that he also sells biscuits. PW-3 Dila Ram denied that the respondent sells only haberdashery articles at his shop. PW-4 Rattan Singh, however, stated that the respondent sells only haberdashery articles at his shop and he had told the Food Inspector that the biscuits belonged to his friend Raghubir, who had kept the same at his shop a little earlier and was to take away the same. Respondent also examined Raghubir Singh as DW-1. He too claimed that biscuits belonged to him and he had purchased it for use in connection with a function at his place, but had kept at the shop of the respondent, from where he was to take the same to his place later. Learned Sessions Court has believed this plea of the respondent, based upon the aforesaid evidence of PW-4 Rattan Singh and DW-1 Raghubir Singh. 7. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence, I do not find that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not possible. 8. Another reason given by the learned Sessions Court for acceptance of appeal is that sanction for prosecution, Ex. P- - 4 - 12, does not appear to have been accorded, after application of mind. Learned Sessions Court has placed reliance upon the testimony of PW-2 R.L. Gupta to hold this view. PW-2 R.L. Gupta testified that he submitted the papers to the Local Health Authority, which after perusing all the relevant documents dictated the sanction, Ex. P-12, to him and he typed the same. This statement of PW-2 R.L. Gupta is incorrect, on the face of it, because the sanction is in the form an already typed format with blanks for filling in the names and particulars of the Food Inspector and the accused as also the nature of the food stuff and the kind of adulteration/misbranding reported by the Public Analyst. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Sessions Court qua sanction can also not be said to be not reachable from the evidence on record. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is dismissed. July 16, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.