IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.585/2000 Decided on:5.8.2008. ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar. … Respondent. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. with Mr. Vikash Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The respondent was prosecuted in case No.120-III-1995 (RBT) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was convicted and sentenced by the trial court on 30.11.1996 under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to undergo rigorous 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Una. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal on 31.3.2000 and the accused was acquitted of the offence by giving him benefit of doubt. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2000. The brief facts as gathered from the judgments of both the courts below are that a complaint was instituted in the trial court by the Food Inspector, Una against the accused under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegation that on 23.7.1991 at about 12.10 P.M. Sh. K.P. Garg, Food Inspector went to the shop of M/s Charan Dass and Sons situated at Village Dehlan, District Una and found that accused Vijay Kumar was conducting business in the shop. The Food Inspector after giving notice to the accused, purchased 450 grams of Haldi powder against payment of Rs. 7.20 paisa for the purpose of analysis in the presence of witness Piara Singh, who was associated at the time of taking the sample. The sample was equally divided into three parts and put into three neat, clean and dry bottles and the same were properly corked, labelled and sealed. The bottles were wrapped in a thick paper and paper slip was pasted with gum from top to bottom and the signatures of the accused were obtained in such a manner that the paper slip and wrapper both carried a part of it. The bottles were further tied with strong thread and sealed at four distinct places and panchnama was prepared. One part of the sample along with form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh in a sealed packet 3 under registered parcel and copy of form VII along with seal impression was sent in a separate sealed cover through registered post. The remaining two parts of the samples along with copies of form-VII and specimen seal impression were deposited with Local Health Authority, Una. After the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample was adulterated as the ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric present was 3.04% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.5% and the contents also contained rice starch. The Food Inspector made a complaint along with all the documents to Chief Medical Officer to grant permission to launch prosecution against the accused. The permission was accorded by the Chief Medical Officer and consequently the prosecution was launched. After launching the prosecution, the Local Health Authority, Una in compliance of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 sent by a registered post intimation letter along with a copy of report of Public Analyst to the accused and the accused exercised the right under section 13 (2) of the Act and second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The sample was again found to be adulterated. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 31.3.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. 4 It is clear from the order dated 15.10.1992 recorded by the trial court that third part of the sample was produced by the official of the Local Health Authority, which did not bear signatures of the accused and it was ordered to be retained in the court. However, in the complaint lodged in the trial court and in the statement of Sh. K.P. Garg it is stated that the signatures of the accused were taken after sealing three bottles of sample. The statement of PW-1 K.P. Garg stands falsified from the order of the trial court dated 15.10.1992 since third part of the sample produced by the Local Health Authority was not found reflecting the signatures of the accused. The order dated 15.10.1992 of the learned trial court reads thus: “3rd part of the sample has been produced today by official of L.H.A in the Court which does not bear the signatures of the accused. It be retained in the court. Sample bearing signatures of the accused which is already lying in the court be sent to Director, Food Laboratory Mysore on depositing analysis fee by the accused. Be put up on 20.10.1992 for sending the sample. Fee be deposited on or before that date.” It is thus evident that there was a breach of mandatory provisions of section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. All the documents as required under law were not produced before the Chief Medical Officer at the time of obtaining his sanction. PW-4 Pawan Kumar has deposed that all the documents were seen and singed by the Chief Medical Officer. However, in cross- 5 examination he has stated that Ex.P-5 and Ex. P-7, which were put up before the Chief Medical Officer were not seen and signed by the Chief Medical officer. The Chief Medical Officer was required to look into each and every document before according the sanction. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the sanction accorded in the present case was not valid, are upheld. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 5, 2008. *awasthi*