Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2001 -1- .... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2001 Date of decision:- 09.12.2010 Kulbhushan ......Petitioner versus State of U.T., Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: - None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate, for the respondent. .... A.N.JINDAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 06.10.2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 24.07.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 7 (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act') punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 13.08.1992 at about 1 pm, Government Food Inspector- Vireshwar Singh inspected the shop of the petitioner and found that he was having 40 packets of iodized Om Brand Deepa Salt for sale in his possession. After disclosing his identity, the Government Food Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2001 -2- .... Inspector demanded the sample of the said commodity and purchased three sealed packets of 1 Kg. each for ` 7.50/-. These were divided into three equal parts and were put into three dry and clean plastic containers. The plastic containers were secured by means of strong twine/thread and sealed by four distinct seals. The signatures of the accused were affixed in such a manner that paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of signatures. One of sealed plastic containers was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh and the remaining two were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Chandigarh for safe custody. The report of the Public Analyst indicated Sodium Chloride on dry wt. 95.73% and matter soluble in water other than sodium chloride 3.87% against the minimum and maximum prescribed standard of 96.0% and 3.0%. As such complaint was filed. After preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned and served notice of accusation. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. This petition relates to the year 2001. None has turned up to argue the petition. Therefore, I am left with no option but to decide the same after examining the same after perusing the records and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent. It is settled by now that without any perversity or defect or error apparent on the record, the Court should be reluctant in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below. Both the Courts below appear to have appreciated the Criminal Revision No.1519 of 2001 -3- .... evidence in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity in the conduct of trial or procedure or any manifest error apparent on record, has been indicated, warranting interference. Taking of the sample is not disputed. The pleas as set up in the grounds of petition have been duly discussed and answered by the Ist appellate Court. As regards, summoning of manufacturer, it may be observed that as per bill Ex.D1, one item of 50 kg was purchased by the accused, therefore, accused can't avail the benefit of Section 19 of the Act. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for compliance. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 09.12.2010 neetu