Crl.R. No.979 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.979 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: April 1, 2009 SAIN DASS ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. JAGDISH MANCHANDA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. AMIT KHATKAR, AAG, HARYANA. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This revision has been by the petitioner against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2000, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide which the petitioner has been held guilty under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo R.I. for 1 month. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned judgement by filing an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgement dated 8.5.2002 and resultantly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner has been upheld. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.7.1993, Natha Singh, Government Food Inspector filed a complaint under the Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal wherein it was averred that on 18.3.1993, he alongwith Dr. B.L. Madan inspected the Karyana Shop of the petitioner Sain Dass situated near Bus Stand, Nissing. The petitioner had got 4 kgs. of Crl.R. No.979 of 2002 -2- Lal Mirch for public sale. It was contained in a gunny bag. After disclosing his identification the Food Inspector told the petitioner that he wishes to take the sample of chilly powder (Lal Mirch Pissi Hui) and gave notice Ex.PA. The contents of chilly powder was mixed and the Food Inspector purchased 450 gms. of chilly powder from the accused for Rs.18/- and issued him receipt Ex.P8. After following the procedure of putting the chilly powder in three dry empty bottles and sealing the sample, the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample was containing Haldi and the same contained ash insoluble in dilute HCL 1.52% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.3% and grit 0.76%. As the sample of red chilly powder was not as per the standards prescribed, therefore, a complaint under Section 13(2) of the Act was launched against the petitioner. The trial Court after going through the evidence found that the petitioner has sold red chilly power which was not as per the standards laid down in the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned in the paragraph 1 above. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence has been upheld. Mr. Manchanda, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Public Analyst in his report has nowhere stated that sub-standard chilly powder was injurious to health. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgement in The State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Lal, reported as 2003(4) RCR (Criminal), wherein the Public Analyst did not mention that substance was unfit for human consumption then the acquittal of the accused was upheld. To a similar effect, learned counsel has further referred to another judgement in Prem Parkash Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported as Crl.R. No.979 of 2002 -3- 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 759. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued the presence of Haldi in the red chilly powder was because one bamboo spoon was being used in lifting the articles from the gunny bag. It is contended by the learned counsel that presence of a very small quantity of Haldi in the chilly powder would not constitute adulteration. Counsel for the petitioner has lastly argued that moreover in this case the sample was taken on 18.3.1993, and as the petitioner has already faced a long and protracted trial for almost 16 years and the petitioner is 72 years of age at present, therefore, even if the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, the sentence may be reduced to the one already undergone by him. The only reason why the Public Analyst held that the red chilly powder was adulterated was because of the presence of a small quantity of Haldi. The same was found because a common bamboo spoon was being used for lifting Haldi as well as red chilly powder and other food articles. Moreover, the Public Analyst has not mentioned in his report that the sample taken was injurious to health and was unfit for human consumption. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be held guilty for selling adulterated red chilly powder. The case of the petitioner is also squarely covered by the judgements aforestated. Resultantly, I set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well the sentence imposed upon him under Section 7 of the Act and acquit the petitioner. Revision Petition allowed. April 1, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE