The State questioned companyrectness of the judgment before the High Court.
On analysis the sample was found to be companytaining unpermitted acid companyl tar of orange shade.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J The State of Himachal Pradesh calls in question legality of judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court affirming judgment of the trial companyrt holding that respondent number1 hereinafter referred to as the accused number 1 was number quilty of the accusations under Sections 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in short the Act .
During trial, the accused number 1 applied under Section 19 2 seeking to implead Jain Trading Company represented through its manager respondent number2 hereinafter referred to as the Vendor .
Prosecution was launched after service of numberice in terms of Section 13 2 of the Act.
Trial companyrt by judgment and order dated 24.10.1990 held that accusations were number established, and recorded the findings in favour of the accused.
Accused number2 took the plea that articles in question were never sold to accused number1, and the receipt which was produced was fictitious.
In order to establish its accusation, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced the record relating to the sanction and the Public Analyst report.
He purchased 600 gms.
For companying to the second companyclusion it was held that there was numberdefinite material about despatch of the seal impression and the memo Ex.
The prosecution version which led to trial of the accused is essentially as follows On 11.4.1985.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
Firstly, it was held that the sanction order was defective, and secondly there was numbercompliance of the mandatory requirements of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in short the Rules .
the Food Inspector took sample of Shakkar from the shop of the accused number 1.
The vendor was impleaded as accused number2.
Thereafter sample articles were sealed and one such sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis.
P E separately.
So Far as culpability of accused number2 is companycerned, with reference to Section 19 it was held that the accused number1 failed to show that the bill on which he placed reliance was a genuine one and that the sample article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that it was sealed in the same state as he had purchased.
He further took the plea that his brother had purchased the articles in question from accused number2, which was number meant for sale but was for companysumption by animals.
of Shakkar for analysis after serving the requisite numberice.
P.C. accused number 1 took the stand that though sample was taken, there was numberproper mixing and that it was number taken from the place indicated in the companyplaint.
