IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 721 of 2002 Date of decision: September 22, 2011 Joginder Singh Sihra .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Gurminderjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has died. Otherwise, we have no evidence that the petitioner has died, therefore, this petition cannot be order to be abated. Assailed in this petition is the order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 25.1.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshairpur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `1000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein referred as, 'the Act'). On 11.10.1995, at about 4.15 p.m Dr. Harjit Lal SMO-cum -Food Inspector Incharge SHC Baddon District Hoshiarpur along with Dhani Ram Government Food Inspector visited the “Paradise Hotel and Restaurant” and after disclosing their identity, and serving notice on Form VI, purchased 750 grams of homogenized curd for `10.50. The sample so purchased was divided into three partes and the same put into three dry and cleaned bottles, 20 drops of 40% formalein was added as preservative in each bottle. Each bottle was stoppered, labelled, wrapped in a think paper and sealed with the seal bearing impression “Dr. HL”. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh under sealed cover bearing the seal impression “Dr.HL” along with sealed envelope containing the copy of form VII, whereas the remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Crl. Revision No. 721 of 2002 -2- Health Authory. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, a complaint against the petitioner was presented in the court. After recording pre-charge evidence, charge under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Harjit Singh (PW1), Dhani Ram (PW2), Gurmit Singh (PW3) and Nasib Chand (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Balbir Singh (DW1). The trial resulted into conviction of Joginder Singh, whereas, his co-accused Mintoo Sarkar was declared as proclaimed offender. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having examined the impugned judgment, the prosecution has led sufficient evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Both the courts below have returned the findings of fact that the accused was found in possession of 3 kgs of curd meant for public sale and human consumption. The report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh (Ex.PG) reveals that the sample so sent for analysis was fit for analysis and on examination the contents of the sample were found deficient in milk fat by 65.0% and in milk solid not fat by 24.0% of the minimum prescribed standard and as such, the sample curd was adulterated. No meaningful argument has been raised in order to prove the innocence of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. September 22, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge