Criminal Revision No.482 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.482 of 2011 Date of decision:- 17.3.2011 Murari Lal Garg ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J. This criminal revision is against the judgment dated 17.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which judgment and order dated 17.3.2009 has been affirmed. On 12.12.1999 at about 4.40 PM Jitender Yadav, District Food Inspector alongwith Dr. A.K. Gupta, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ballabgarh inspected the premises of Bohra Oil Mill of M/s Bohra Industrict situated in the main bazar Ballabgarh. Murari Lal servant of M/s Bohra Industries was found in possession of 30 kg. of refined mustard oil for public sale contained in a pipa (iron box). The Food Inspector after giving him a notice on form VII purchased 500 ml of refined mustard oil against payment of Rs.21/-. The sample was divided into three equal parts and were bottled in three dry clean empty bottles. A paper slip bearing code No.FBD-CS-FCI/F-1-2/249 and signature of Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. One sealed bottle alongwith a memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst Criminal Revision No.482 of 2011 -2- Haryana, Chandigarh and the other two sealed bottle samples were deposited with the LHA on 14.12.1999. The report of Public Analyst showed that the sample did not confirm with the prescribed standard as per item No.A.17.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The sample was found adulterated and unfit for human consumption. Murari Lal was summoned to face trial and after framing of the charge statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him in the complaint. Learned trial Court after hearing the Government Food Inspector held that the accused was guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, the accused would remain in simple imprisonment for one month further. The fine was paid. The main ground in the appeal is that the accused was not person incharge and responsible for the business of the company so he cannot be held guilty. No pre-charge evidence was recorded by the trial Court after amendment of charge. No valid test has been conducted to detect fault on the sample of mustered oil. The conviction order dated 18.3.2009 has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside on the ground that nomination of Bahadur Singh, Production Supervisor of the Bohra Industries was wrongly nominated and has not been joined as accused and further has not been considered the provisions of Section 17(b) which clears shows that as under :- “The Company” No person of the Company can be prosecuted without prosecuting the company as neither the nominee of the company nor the company itself has been prosecuted by the prosecution in this case, the appeal of the accused/appellant should be accepted on this sole ground.” Criminal Revision No.482 of 2011 -3- No independent witness was called by the Food Inspector, which is contrary to the provision of Section 10(7) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the trial Court as well as Additional Sessions Judge, carefully. In my considered opinion there is no ground to interfere in the judgments and the conviction is upheld. However, as per the custody certificate filed by the Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad, out of six months, the petitioner has undergone almost one month and 29 days of simple imprisonment. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been facing the trial since 1999 and has already undrgone two months in custody and further the fact that the petitioner was employee of the company, this Court is of the view that the period i.e. two months, which he has already undergone, is sufficient for the purpose of conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The criminal revision is disposed of in the above terms. April 17, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE