1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 1175-SBA of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: 29.7.2010 *** The State (UT Chandigarh) .. Appellant VS. Raj Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the appellant UT Chandigarh. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant appeal, a challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 3.10.2001 rendered by the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondents-accused were tried by the Court of CJM, Chandigarh pursuant to a complaint made by the Food Inspector with the allegations that on 24.7.1991 he was found keeping in his possession 12 packets of 250 gms. each of Pakistani Rock Salt manufactured by M/s Mohant Foods India, for public sale, which on analysis was found to be non-iodized salt, the sale of which was prohibited by the Health Department vide Notification No. 2252-MH-III-76/2083 dated 20th February, 1976. The learned trial Court while acquitting the accused, did not accept the ipse dixit of complainant that the respondents were actually selling the salt for human consumption. The learned trial court found the stand of the accused more probable and concluded that since the rock salt, the sample of which was drawn by the Food Inspector, from the accused, is not a food as envisaged under Section 2(v) of the Act, therefore, its sale cannot attract the penal provisions, if the same is found to be not iodized. 2 By dint of the Notification, the violation of which, was alleged against the respondent, sale of salt, other than iodized salt as an article of food within the Union Territory of Chandigarh was prohibited. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was indulged in the sale of rock salt by saying it to be an iodized one. It is the consistent stand of the accused that the same was not kept by him for sale as a food article for human consumption, rather the same is used in Ayurvedic medicines. His aforesaid version is further supported by the evidence of DW 3 Dr. Shaleen Singh, an Ayurvedic Doctor who in clear words deposed that rock salt, which is costlier than common salt, is used in Ayurvedic medicines as a raw drug and it is not a substitute for common salt and administered to the animals to make their digestive system in order. Further, in the case of Dina Nath vs. State of H.P., 1998(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 151, Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court while dealing with the issue of iodized salt, observed that the rock salt is generally used for cattle. On record, there is bald statement of complainant i.e. Food Inspector to show that there is violation of above notification dated 20th February 1976 whereas the other evidence on record coupled with the law cited above, goes to prove that rock salt is generally used for medicinal purposes and for cattle. It is settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one favouring the acquittal and the other conviction, the High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal, especially in the circumstances when a colossal period of 19 years have elapsed since the sample in this case was drawn in the year 1991. Therefore, there is no room to interfere with the findings of acquittal rendered by the Court below in favour of the respondents. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 29,2010 Jiten