Nasib Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Nasib Singh petitioner 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 one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ by the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, karnal, has maintained his conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for he petitioner and have also perused the record of the case. The prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On May 30, 1379. Food Inspector Kali Ram accompanied by Dr. J.S. Sohi purchased 900 grams of Kulfi from the shop of the petitioner at Nilokheri. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it contained 5.1 per cent milk fat and 3.2 per cent protein against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.0 per cent and 3.5 per cent respectively. The learned magistrate relied on the prosecution evidence and found the petitioner guilty of the said offence. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.

In this revision before me the only question pressed on behalf of the petitioner is that he was greatly prejudiced by 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. P.D. the sample was found to be adulterated. What have you to say?"

It was not put to the petitioner as to what was the adulteration for which he was being charged. The incriminating circumstances against the petitioner was that he was found selling Kulfi which contained 5.1 per cent milk fat and 3.2 per cent protein against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.0 per cent and 3.5 per cent respectively but this fact has not been put to him. In such circumstances, the examination, under Section 313, Cr.P.C. not bringing out actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the petitioner, he could not be convicted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Act.

The revision is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentenced imposed upon the petitioner are hereby set aside. The fine, if realised, shall be refunded.