IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No. 428 of 1997 Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 Lajpat Rai ....... Petitioner through Shri Parveen Hans, Advocate. Versus The State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 30.4.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 7.5.1996 and order of sentence dated 10.5.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a shop in the area of village Bhaini Jatan. On 12.1.1993 at about 2.30 P.M., Shri Megh Nath, Government Food Inspector (PW1) along with Dr.Karamvir, Crl.Revision Petition No.428 of 1997 -2- .... Medical Officer and one independent witness, namely, Daya Nand, inspected the premises of the petitioner and found him in possession of 15 packets of iodised salt meant for public sale contained in a wooden box. A sample of 900 grams was purchased by PW1 by getting opened the packets against payment of Rs.2.70. It was divided into three parts and kept in three dry, clean and empty bottles, which were sealed and one of them was sent as sample to Public Analyst,Haryana for examination. Vide his report, Annexure PF, the Public Analyst, Haryana found that the sample was uniodised as it did not contain iodine against minimum specified limit of 15.0 ppm laid down for `Iodised Salt' under item No. A.15.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 (for short, `the 1955 Rules'). In the report, it was also mentioned that the sale of such salt, i.,e., other than iodised salt, has been prohibited by Food (Health) Authority, Haryana -cum- Director General, Health Services, Haryana, vide his notification dated 3.9.1992. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, PW1 filed a complaint before the trial Court against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for brevity, `the 1954 Act'). The trial Court recorded the pre-charge evidence of the complainant and thereafter framed a charge against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses to prove its case. Crl.Revision Petition No.428 of 1997 -3- .... In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the version of the prosecution in total. He also examined DW1-Daya Nand,who was allegedly joined at the time of taking the sample by PW1, in his defence. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged against him and he was accordingly convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample was drawn by opening the packet of the salt, which was in violation of Rule 22-A of the 1955 Rules. He further contended that since the packets of salt were sealed, one of them was required to be taken as a sample and since this procedure was not adopted, it had caused a great prejudice to the petitioner. It was submitted that since the provisions of Rule 22-A of the 1955 Rules were violated, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are not sustainable. In support of his contention/ submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Daljit Wig Versus State of Punjab, 1980 Chandigarh Law Reporter 166 (P&H); Amar Nath Versus State of Punjab, 1982(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 36 (P&H); Oswal Crl.Revision Petition No.428 of 1997 -4- .... Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Ludhiana Versus State of Punjab, 1982 Criminal Law Times 338 (P&H); and Bhim Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1987(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 150 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that since the sample was found deficient by the Public Analyst, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are perfectly in order and do not require any interference. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the record. Rule 22-A of the 1955 Rules on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:- “22A. Contents of one or more similar sealed containers having identical labels to constitute the quantity of a food sample.- Where food is sold or stocked for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more of such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample.” A reading of the statement of PW1 and the complaint, Exhibit PG reveals that the sealed packets were opened and made homogeneous and thereafter a sample of 900 grams was taken, which was divided into three parts out of which one was got analysed from the Public Analyst. Rule 22- A, reproduced above, is more than explicit in its language. That apart, Rule 22 of the 1955 Rules deals with the quantity Crl.Revision Petition No.428 of 1997 -5- .... of sample to be sent to the public analyst. Under entry 37 of this rule, Iodised salt/ iron fortified salt is mentioned and quantity is 200 grams. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question involved was almost identical to the one herein. In those cases ,the sample of food article contained in sealed container was taken and after examination of the relevant provisions of the rules, particularly Rule 22-A, it was found that there was violation of the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules. Accordingly, this Court quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings in Daljit Wig's case (supra); Amar Nath's case (supra); Oswal Vanspati & Allied Industries,Ludhiana's case (supra) and set aside the conviction & sentence in Bhim Singh's case (supra). In the instant case, as noticed above, there is violation of Rule 22-A of the 1955 of the Rules because the packets were opened, made homogeneous and then the sample was taken. Accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down in the above mentioned cases, this petition is accepted, the impugned judgment is reversed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge against him. August 25,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge