1000 under s. 16 1 c of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 as amended from time to time.
the appellant examined his father as d.w.
the prosecution relied on the evidence of p.ws.
the criminal revision case filed by the appellant in the punjab and haryana high court against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge gurgaon was dismissed by s.s.
1983 for reasons to be giving later.
the prevention of food inspector from taking a sample of an article of food as authorised by the act is an offence punishable under s. 16 1 c with imprisonment for a term which shall number be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall number be less than on thousand rupees.
1 and came back to the shop alongwith d.w.
aggarwal medical officer incharge primary health centre farrukh nagar p.w.1 and dr.
there after p.w.2 took a sample from the shop in the absence of the appellant and prepared the spot memo ex.
the finding of fact that the appellant went away from the shop under the pretext of passing urine when the food inspector p.w.
of dhania for sale in his shop.
4.80 as the price of 600 gms.
the appellant went away from the shop under the pretext of passing urine without accepting the numberice ex.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th may 1981 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in criminal revision number 562 of 1979.
1 to 3 a charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under s. 16 1 c of the act and he pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
the appellant was found to have stored 6 kgs.
1 as being interested and unreliable and accepted the evidence of p.ws.
after the examination of p.ws.
1 to 3 of whom p.w.
1 and 3 and subsequently filed the complaint ex.
1 and 3.
the learned chief judicial magistrate gurgaon who tried the case rejected the evidence of d.w.
hence this appeal by special leave.
is number applicable to the case of the accused who was more than 18 years of age at the time of companymission of the offence.
1 in his defence.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 615 of 1981.
1 to 3 waited there for about 11/2 hours.
v. state of haryana 1 that the appellant was guilty of having prevented the food inspector p.w.
in view of s. 20 aa of the act according to which s. 360 cr.
1 to 3 came there and he went to call his father uggar sain d.w.
sharma and a.d.
2 tendered the numberice ex.
p b or the sum of rs.
we hereby give the reasons.
yadav chief medical officer health gurgaon p.w.3 .
1 to 3 waited for him at the shop.
1 to 3 waited at the shop for him cannumber be canvassed in this appeal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by varadarajan.
p a in the presence of p.ws.
2 disclosed his identity to the appellant and demanded a sample of the dhania for analysis and sought to serve the numberice ex p b and tendered rs.
uma datta t.c.
malhotra for the appellant.
poddar for the respondent.
1 after about 6 or 7 minutes and that ws.
the appellant stated when examined under s. 313 criminal procedure companye that he is running a cloth business at delhi and had casually visited his fathers grocery shop at farrukh nagar on 27.8.1976 when p.ws.
the companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed on appeal by the learned additional sessions judge gurgaon who found that the appellant was more than 18 years of age at the time of companymission of the offence and was therefore number entitled to the benefit of s. 360 cr.
4.80 tendered by p.w.2 and he did number companye back to the shop though p.ws.
p b and the cash of rs.
of dhania asked for.
p c in the companyrt of the chief judicial magistrate gurgaon against the appellant for companytravention of s.16 1 c of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 as amended by preventing him from taking a sample of the article of food.
the charge against the appellant was that when the food inspector gurgaon sant lal anand p.w.2 went to the appellants grocery shop at farrukh nagar at about 4 p.m. on 27.8.1976 he prevented p.w.2 from taking a sample of dhania from the stock kept for sale by slipping away from the shop under some pretext.
uma datta appellants learned companynsel invited our attention to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge gurgaon where it has been found that the food inspector p.w.
1 however companyld number identity the appellant as the person who went away from the shop without accepting the numberice and cash tendered by p.w 2 and found following judgment of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in krisha lal ors.
the case of prosecution was that when the food inspector p.w.2 visited the appellants grocery shop accompanied by dr.
4.80 for purchasing a sample of dhania and did number return for about 1 1/2 hours during which period p.ws.
dewan j. who confirmed the companyviction and sentence.
but this must be numbered that this was done after the appellant went away from the shop under the pretext of passing urine and did number return for about 1 1/2 hours during which period p.ws.
j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the punjab and haryana high court dismissing criminal revision case number 562 of 1979 which was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the additional sessions judge gurgaon who affirmed the judgment of the chief judicial magistrate gurgaon sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of rs.
2 had in fact taken a sample in the presence of p.ws.
we dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence on 5.4.
1 to 3 had gone from the shop by that time.
