IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.622 of 2005 Date of decision: November 29, 2010 Kewal Krishan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Challenge made in this petition is to the judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 16.10.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, 'the Act'). In nutshell, the allegations are that on 9.5.1992, at about 12.15 p.m. Kali Ram Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Vijay Kumar Singhal, Medical Officer, ESI Hospital, Jagadhri inspected the shop of the petitioner and found him in possession of 8 kgs of curd for public sale. He served notice Ex.PA on Form VI and purchased 600 grams of curd for analysis. After mixing, churning and making it homogenous, divided the same into three equal parts and put the same into three empty, dry clean bottles. Necessary formalin was added as preservative. The bottles were stoppered, labeled and sealed on the neck with the seal of Medical Officer. One sealed sample bottle along with Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana at Chandigarh and the remaining two sample bottles along with two copies of Form VII were deposited with the LHA. On analysis the sample was found adulterated as it was found containing milk fat 2.5% against the prescribed standard of 4%. On receipt of the report of the Criminal Revision No.622 of 2005 -2- Public Analyst complaint Ex.PE was filed in the court. After recording the pre-charge evidence, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Kali Ram (PW1), Dr. V.K. Singhal (PW2), Kishori Lal (PW3) and Des Raj (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution case hinges on the testimonies of Kali Ram Government Food Inspector (PW1) and Dr. V.K. Singhal (PW2). Both of them are quite consistent in their statements with regard to time, place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. They have withstood the test of cross-examination well and nothing could be elicited which could shatter their reliability and trustworthiness. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the curd was not made homogenous, it may be observed that both the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated that the curd was cut into four compartments and one compartment was taken out and then churned into churning pot to make it homogenous. Now re-appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality much less irregularity or perversity warranting interference by this court. Both the courts have given concurrent findings that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was charged. As such no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused could be made at this revisional stage. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. November 29, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge