IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.145 of 2002 Date of decision : June 23, 2009 Krishan Chand …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. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Revision petitioner has been convicted of offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated ice candy. Trial Court, after convicting, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Petitioner appealed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, reduced the sentence to three months imprisonment. Amount of fine has also been reduced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.500/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made four submissions, viz. independent witnesses had not been joined, evidence of sale of ice candy is not there, provision of Section 14(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been complied with and there is also non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. It has come in evidence that one Balam Ram was associated as an independent witness. Of course, the said witness was not examined during the course of trial, but that would not mean that at the time of the taking of the sample independent witness had not been associated and, hence, there was non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. Submission that evidence of sale of ice candy is lacking is also without merit, because the Food Inspector, Shri G.R. Puri, who appeared as PW-1, very categorically stated that he paid a sum of Rs.7.50, as price of the sample candy. Question of compliance of Section 14(a) does not arise, because, as per prosecution version, petitioner had an ice plant and was the manufacturer of the allegedly adulterated ice candy. 5. However, there appears to be substance in the submission that mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been complied with, inasmuch as the copy of the report of the Public Analyst, as also the intimation that he had a right to get another part of the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, were not sent to the revision petitioner. No doubt, the evidence on record says that intimation was sent to the petitioner, by registered post (covers Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-23) and the same were received undelivered, with the report that the revision petitioner had left for some unknown place, but it is made out from the address written on these two envelopes that the …3… petitioner was sought to be delivered these registered covers at the address where sample was taken, despite the fact that in the Panchnama, it is mentioned that the petitioner was serving as security guard with BBMB at Pandoh. That means the address for correspondence of the petitioner was the place of his work at Pandoh. No attempt was made to serve the notice upon him, at the aforesaid address. Thus, compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was only ritual and not real. In other words, there was no compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, judgment of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner, for offence, under Section 16(1)(a), as affirmed by the appellate Court, with modification, is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. June 23, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J