IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.424 of 2002 Decided on: July 3, 2009. State of H.P …Appellant Versus Subhash Kumar …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 Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 6.12.2001, whereby respondent Subhash Kumar Bhutt, who had been convicted of offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, vide judgment dated 29.10.1999, has been acquitted. 2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be noticed. On 30.9.1991, Food Inspector PW-2 Subhash Sharma, went to the shop of one Umesh Dixit, in village Ghurkari and took sample of Haldi (turmeric powder), which was in packets of 100 grams. He purchased six packets and made them into three parcels of two packets each. Parcels Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… were wrapped, sealed and secured with a twine from top to bottom & across, as per requirement of law. One of the sample packets was sent to Public Analyst, who opined that turmeric was adulterated inasmuch as it contained metanil yellow, a non-permitted coal tar dye of yellow shade. On receipt of the said report and after obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority, Food Inspector filed complaint against said Umesh Dixit, who moved an application, under Section 20-A of the Prevention Food Adulteration Act, to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, seeking impleadment of the present respondent as an accused. He stated that he had purchased the turmeric powder, in question, against Bill, Mark DD, dated 30.9.1991, and had sold the same in the same state and condition, in which he had purchased it from the respondent. That application was allowed and the present respondent was impleaded as an accused. 3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate then tried the respondent and the original vendor Umesh Dixit. At the end of trial, Umesh Dixit was acquitted and the present respondent was convicted. 4. Respondent appealed against his conviction to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge assigned the appeal to Additional Sessions Judge, who has accepted the same vide impugned judgment. 5. Learned first appellate Court has taken the view that Umesh Dixit had purchased the turmeric powder, in question, vide credit Bill, Mark DD, from a firm by the name of …3… M/s J.K. Marketing, Kangra, and there was no evidence on record to connect the present respondent with the said concern. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. Credit Bill, Mark DD, against which Umesh Dixit, the vendor, claimed to have purchased the turmeric powder, is in the name of some Sanjay Store. It is not in the name of Umesh Dixit. There is nothing on the record, indicating that Umesh Dixit runs the shop, from where sample was picked up, in the name and style of Sanjay Store. Further, this bill is dated 30.9.1991. Sample was also picked up on 30.9.1991. There is no material on record, indicating that against this Bill Mark DD, turmeric powder had been purchased and brought to the shop of Umesh Dixit, before the sample was taken. 8. Respondent took the plea that he had sold turmeric powder to Umesh Dixit on 6.10.1991, after purchasing the same from manufacturer, whose place of business is at Amritsar. This plea of the respondent could not be said an afterthought, because soon after his impleadment as an accused, he moved an application dated 14.7.1993, under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, seeking impleadment of manufacturer of Haldi, in question, who had his place of business at Amritsar. In the said application it was mentioned that turmeric powder, in question, …4… had been purchased on 6.10.1991 from the manufacturer and it was further sold to Umesh Dixit, in the same state. 9. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 3, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.