IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.764 of 2010. Date of decision: 26.08.2010. State of H.P. … …Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumar … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Bhupeinder Ahuja, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State has filed this petition against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, acquitting the respondent herein for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’). The State pleads that the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on the correct reasoning and appreciation of evidence and should and ought to be accepted. 2. The facts of the case are that Food Inspector Atul Kaistha PW-1 visited the shop of the respondent being run in the name and style of M/s.Roop Trading 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Company, VPO Chowki Janwalan, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, on 16.2.2004 at around 1.00 P.M. The complainant Food Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention of taking sample of Vanaspati “Do Khajoor” for which notice Ex.PW-1/A was issued. PW-2 Raghuvir Singh was also present at that time. The accused disclosed to the complainant that he had purchased this item from M/s.R.K. Trading Company, General Merchants and Commission Agents etc. at Gagret, District Una. Photocopy of bill Ex.PW-1/B was also handed over to the Food Inspector at that time. 3. Three packets of Vanaspati “Do Khajoor” were purchased for Rs.170/-. They were divided into three equal parts and after being sealed etc. were sent for analysis. Panchnama Ex.PW-1/A, containing the detail of the samples, was prepared and signatures of the witnesses and accused were obtained on these documents. 4. The prosecution case is that the Public Analyst vide his report Ex.PW-1/K opined that the melting point of sample was 43 degree centigrade against the maximum prescribed standard of 41 degree centigrade. Bedouin test for the presence of sesame oil was negative whereas Vanaspati sample should have contained sesame oil in sufficient quantity. After obtaining sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the respondent asking him to exercise his option for having 3 the second part of the sample analyzed within the statutory period. 4. The petitioner was charged for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i)read with Section 7 of the Act. On the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. The respondent appealed. Learned appellate Court, holds that the admitted case of the prosecution is that the respondent was only a vendor and the Vanaspati was purchased from M/s.R.K. Trading Company which was arrayed as accused No.2, but was discharged in revision which was preferred by it. At that time the evidence in trial had yet to commence. The Court also holds that the report of the Public Analyst is incomplete as it does not show the month, day and year of the manufacture of Vanaspati. 6. Considering the evidence on the defence of DW-1 Gautam Nayar, Proprietor of M/s.R.K. Trading Company, the Court notices that the bill Ex.PW-1/B (Ex.DW-1) was admitted to have been issued by his Company and concludes that the Vanaspati had infact been purchased from them. Besides the fact that M/s.R.K. Trading Company, who were the accused and were discharged in revision holding that in this case the date of manufacture of the Vanaspati was shown as 4 December, 2003 while this sample was taken in November, 2003. It was destructive to the entire case of the prosecution. Learned appellate Court holds that it was the respondent who was entitled for acquittal under Section 19(2) of the Act as it had been established on the record that the respondent was only a vendor and that the article of food sold, was in the same packed condition when it was received. The Court also notices that in the report of the Public Analyst he does not mention the date and year of manufacture. 7. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Bhupinder Ahuja, learned counsel, for the respondent. 8. The reasoning of the appellate Court cannot be faulted with. Moreover, what I find from the case is that when the wholesaler has been discharged by the revisional Court holding that the manufacture year of the sample as sent for analysis was December, 2003 it was impossible to have seized such a sample in November, 2003. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal rejected. August 26, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.