Vidya Prakash vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J

Petitioner Vidya Parkash was convicted by Shri Hardial Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda vide his order dated 2751985. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

Prosecution case is that on 12101981, Kishan Chand, Food Inspector visited Cooperative Store, Thermal Plant, Bhatinda, where the petitioner was working as a selesman. The petitioner had 65 kgs of wheatflour in an open bag for sale in his possession The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and served a demand notice manifesting his intention to purchase sample of wheat flour. 600 grams of wheat flour was purchased, taken into possession and sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that sample of wheat flour contained 15 living insects and the contents as such were unfit for human consumption. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, complaint was filed against the petitioner and after trial, he was convicted.

I have gone through the judgment and the evidence and have given my careful consideration to the same.

The Courts below have met all possible arguments which could be raised by the petitioner against his conviction. It is a case where the sample was taken on 12101981 and the analysis was conducted by Public Analyst on 15.10.1981 i. e. within three days of the food sampling The argument that these insects may not be present at the time of the sample and might have come into existence after the seizure of the sample will not be tenable because the analysis was done within three days of the seizure of the sample. An egg normally takes 1 to 14 days to develop into an insect. Susris and Sundis are fully developed, insects and 15 of them were found in the sample. So the argument that they might have come into existence after the seizure of the sample is not available to the petitioner. The wheat flour was supplied by the PUNSUP through Bhupindera Flour Mill, Bhatinda for distribution to yellow card holders on subsidized rates. It appears that the wheat flour was not stored in proper conditions and as it was lying in an open bag, it had developed Susris and Sundis. The petitioner being salesman, it was for him to keep the wheatflour in such a condition that it remains insects free.

The petitioner had applied for sending second sample to the Director. Central Food Laboratory on his appearance in Court on 24.12.1981 but he withdrew his application when the sample was produced for sending the same to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The argument that as he was served after a considerable time and he had lost his right to get the sample reexamined will not be available to the petitioner as he had withdrawn the application for sending the second sample. There is no infirmity or illegality in the approach of the Courts below. I do not find any justification to interfere in the findings arrived at by the courts below. This revision has no force. It is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.