Chandar Bhan vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Chandar Bhan petitionr has been convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the `Act'') and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ by the trial Court. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Hence, this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the case. The prosecution case is that on August 31, 1981, Food Inspector Sher Singh accompanied by Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jind visited the premises of the petitioner and purchased 900 grams of sweets from him for analysis. Vide report ExPD of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated as the same contained ash insoluble in dilute HCL 1.05 per cent and ash sulphate 1.87 per cent against the maximum prescribed standards of 0.2 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively. It also contained unpermitted red basic col tar dye and soap stone pleus grit 0.95 per cent. After obtaining the requisite sanction, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the Courts on consideration of the evidence on record and circumstances of the case have held the guilt of the petitioner established.

In the revision before me, it is contended that the petitioner was gravely prejudiced by the improper examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The question that was put to the petitioner regarding adulteration was as follows :

"It is in evidence against you that according to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD the sample was found to be adulterated. What have you to say"?

It is apparent from the above that it was not put to the petitioner as to what a was the adulteration for which he was being charged. The incriminating circumstances against the petitioner was that the sweets contained unpermitted red basic coal tar dye and soap stone pleus grit 0.95 per cent but this fact has no been put to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. not bringing out the actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the Petitioner, the latter could not be convicted of the offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act. The revision is therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are hereby set aside. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded to him.

Revision allowed.