AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)
Krishan Kumar petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default R.I. for three months under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh vide his order dated 15.7.1982. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower Appellant Court. The petitioner came up in revision to this Court. The same was admitted by S.S. Dewan, J. vide his order dated August 5, 1983.
The charge framed against the petitioner by the trial Magistrate reads as under:
"That you on 11.9.79 at 12.30 p.m. were found in possession of about 100 packets of iodized salt kept in your possession for sale in your factory. Out of which the Govt. Food Inspector Piara Singh took sample from you which in analysis has been declared to be misbranded and adulterated."
A look at the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample sent to him was not found be adulterated, but was found to be a common salt and not Iodized salt, the sale of which is prohibited in the Union of Territory of Chandigarh in view of the Notification No. 2252MHIII76/2093 dated 26.2.1976 of the Chief Commissioner. The examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner shows that the circumstances, that by selling common salt, he has contravened the aforesaid notification issued by the Chief Commissioner, has not been put to him. Mr. H.S. Sawhney learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana 1982 (II) FAC 331, wherein it has been held that omission on the part of the Court to put all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence to the accused would be violative of guarantee of personal explanation, given to an accused person under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid infirmity in the case, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner . Fine, if paid, would be refunded to the petitioner .