IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.219 of 2002 Date of decision : March 25, 2009 Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) Revision petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for offence, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lauhal & Spiti at Kullu, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, i.e. Sessions Court, Kullu, and so he has preferred this revision petition. 2. A complaint was filed against the revision petitioner by Food Inspector alleging that on 14th November, 2000, he went to the shop of the revision petitioner at Bhuntar, where Arhar Daal, weighing 10 kgs., was kept in a container for sale and that after disclosing his identity to the revision petitioner he purchased 750 grams Arhar Daal, against cash payment of Rs.7.00 and divided the purchased quantity of Daal into three parts and put the same into three empty glass bottles and sealed and labeled the said bottles. Revision petitioner furnished Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… receipt of price and also signed the memo of seizure of sample. One of the two samples was sent to the Public Analyst at Kandaghat and the remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Authorities, alongwith Memo Ex. P-7. Public Analyst reported that the Daal, in question, was adulterated, inasmuch as it contained prohibited colouring matter. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on conclusion of the trial, held the revision petitioner guilty and convicted him, as aforesaid, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner in the Sessions Court stands dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Deputy Advocate General and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a number of submissions. His first submission is that as per testimony of PW-2 Purshotam Lal, Dealing Assistant, Office of CMO, Kullu, sanction Ex. P-11, purporting to have been accorded by CMO, Kullu, for the prosecution of the revision petitioner, is not signed by the said CMO, in his capacity as Local Health Authority. I have gone through the statement of the said witness. He has categorically stated that the sanction is signed by the CMO, though in the cross-examination, he did state that a certificate, written in hand, as part of the sanction, by the CMO in his own hand, is not separately signed by him. …3… 6. Next submission made by the learned counsel is that independent witnesses have not corroborated the Food Inspector’s version. Association of independent witnesses is the requirement of law, per Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and such witnesses were associated in this case. If the independent witnesses do not support the Food Inspector, during the course of trial, that by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. 7. Next point raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the price paid by the Food Inspector for 750 grams of Daal was only Rs.7.00, whereas the revision petitioner himself had purchased the Daal at the rate of Rs.26.25 per kilogram, vide bill Ex. P-2. The mere fact that the price paid by the Food Inspector was inadequate would not render the sale void. If that is so, the fact that the price paid by the Food Inspector was lower than the cost price of the revision petitioner, can be of no help to the revision petitioner. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authorities by the Food Inspector, on 15th November, 2000, whereas the sample was taken on 14th November, 2000 and thus the Food Inspector had the opportunity to tamper with the contents of the samples, as the seal, with which the sample parts had been sealed, remained with him. The contention has been noticed only to be rejected. The Food Inspector stated that besides affixing the seal he had wrapped paper slip, issued by the Local Health …4… Authorities, around all the three samples and then secured the samples by means of thread, both on the top and across. When the sealing was done in that fashion there was hardly any scope for tampering with the contents of the bottles. 9. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the particulars of the record, which was produced by PW-2 Purshotam Lal, Dealing Assistant, had not been mentioned in the summons that was sent to him, but when in the witness-box he produced the record of the sample and this suggests that he was given instructions by the Food Inspector, after the issue of summons. This submission in no way proves the innocence of the revision petitioner or weakens the case of the prosecution. 10. Last submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the Food Inspector had stated the quantity of Daal lying in the shop to be 10 kgs., but there is no evidence that he had weighed the entire quantity or had even made a casual assessment of weight. This submission is also of no relevance, when it stands proved by the evidence on record that the revision petitioner had sold 750 grams Daal to the Food Inspector and had received the price, though allegedly inadequate. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. March 25, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J