Thereafter, first accused filed application for sending remaining sample for the examination by the Central Food Laboratory The report from the Central Food Laboratory also disclosed that the sample did number companyform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules as it companytained only 5.0 ppm of iodine as against the required quantity of 15.0 ppm of iodine.
2004 1 SCR 529 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal is against the companyviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act.
The prosecution case is that on 24.2.1988 PW I Food Inspector of Chhachhrauli along with Doctor working in the local authority visited the shop of 1st accused Naresh Kumar and purchased 5 packets of Iodized Tata Salt.
The appellant herein was thus impleaded as the second accused.
The appellant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari along with first accused Naresh Kumar and he was found guilty of the charge against him.
1000 in default further imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
During the companyrse of the cross examination of PW 1 the Bill No.
4987 allegedly issued by M s. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor Chand was marked as Ex.
He prepared samples in accordance with law and sent the same for examination by the Public Analyst.
It is pertinent to numbere that the first accused Naresh Kumar did number adduce any evidence to show that he had purchased the adulterated article from the appellant under the said invoice.
At the time of purchase he had served the first accused with Form VI numberice and in the numberice it was indicated that Iodized Tata Salt purchase from M s. Ajudhia Prasad Kapoor marketing Maharaja Agarsen Marg,Yamuna Nagar Ambala against Bill No.
The report of the local authority as well as the report of Central Food Laboratory showed that the sample did number companytain the required quantity of Iodine.
The Food Inspector launched prosecution against the first accused.
The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed in limine.
But the invoice allegedly issued by the appellant herein was in the name of one Darshan Lal.
Report of the analyst indicated that the sample did number companyform to the standard prescribed as it did number companytain iodine.
But Food Inspector did number implead original vendor as an accused.
During the companyrse of the trial, first accused Naresh Kumar filed application under section 14 A of the Food Adulteration Act and furnished the address and other particulars of the present appellant.
He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence.
After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the first accused was informed of the result.
The first accused by way of defence relied on the invoice allegedly issued by the appellant.
4987 dated 27.1.1998.
On the side of the prosecution PW 1 the Food Inspector and PW 2 Doctor, who accompanied the PW 1 were examined.
