Partly allowed

Salamuddin v. Food Inspector

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2010CRR/1602/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act held in 2001. Considering the delay of over twenty years, the sentence was commuted to the period already undergone, and the fine was reduced to Rs. 5000.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone. Fine enhanced to Rs. 5000.

Salamuddin Vs Food Inspector — Punjab & Haryana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

0 CrleRevne

NO1602 of2003

oll m 7 Z

IN^{THEHIGHCOURTOFPUNJAB82HARYANA} AT CIIANDIGARH

¶9

CrleRevneNO01602^of2003 DATEOF DECISION March 04 2010

¶10

Salamudin

¶11

eeePETITIONER m VS 0 0 Food I Inspector^and another 0 I eeeRESPONDENTS Z CORAM2 HONBLE^MR JUSTICE NlOHlNDER PAL r PRESENT MrSatishChaudharyAdvocate oll lor^the m lvlrMunish^Deswal General 7 Hryana^{for the} respondenttate Z MOHINDER PAL J

¶12

This revision has been 8Ied by againstthe dated 152003 passedby^{the Additional} Sessions JudgeYamuna Nagarat Jagadhriwherebyappealagainstthe of conviction^{andsentenceorder} dated16032001 passedby^the AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrat Jagadhriconvicting^the petitioner underSection 166196a9lread with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food

¶13

AdulterationAct 1954 or short the ActI and hiin to undergo JOYTI RANI Parkash Om2012.09.28 2016.03.28 16:21 rigorous15: 39True ScannedCopy Of Original for a periodof six inonths and to pay a One I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document of Rs10001PHHC,Chandigarh^indefault whereofto undergofurther simple for^a

¶14

¶15

1 0 C I C3 Z 2 r I otj m 7 Z Qm

¶16

¶17

¶18

CrleRevn NO1602 of2003

¶19

¶20

¶21

periodoftwo^{monthswasdismissed}

¶22

The factsof tlle case iⁿ brief are that Oll 151989 Sh^ChunniLal GovernmentFood Inspector^Chhachhraul i at turningChhachhrauliwho^was having in^his 60 liters ofcows milk in threedruinswhich^was meant for public^sale Flle Governinent Food Inspectordisclosedhis identity^to the and 750 inls of cows inilk for analysis Rs00 which ultimatelywas foundadulteratedvide repotloO3xJEI by^thePublic Analyst^{Ultimatelythe} was flled againstthe in theCourt

¶23

On^thebasis of evidence adduced by the accused^was chargedunder Section 161l6il read with Section7 ofthe Act^Hedid not pleadguilty^tothe charge^and claiined^trial In support of its case the examined GovernmentFood InspectorChuni Lal PHl DrNKWadhawan PW2 Shanna PW3 and Mam Chand PW4 PW Lal Chand^was given up bythe beingwon over bythe accused

¶24

ln his^statemento recordedunderSection313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Salamudin denied the evidence and pleadedinnocence No evidence^was led by the 111 defence

¶25

I have heardthe leained counsel for the partlesand have

¶26

gonethroughthe recordsofthe^case

¶27

Sample^of cows milk taken by the Governillent Food

¶28

JOYTI RANI InspectorParkash Om2012.09.2815: 39 from who^was found in of60 Iitres 2016.03.28 16:21I attest to the accuracy and True ScannedCopy Of Original integrity of this document ofPHHC,Chandigarhmilk was found adulteratedbythe Public AnalystReportof the Public

tZ 0 0 I C9 I Z 1 C I 08 m 7 Z 0

¶34

CrleRevn NO1602 of2003

¶35

Analystshowedthatthe milk fat iil the samplewas 4O0Ioand inilk solid not fat^was 73Io and thus tllere^was with regardto milk fat in the by^{12Ioofthe minimum} standardsThe case has been by^theevidence of^Chuni Lal^{the GovemmentFood} PW1 1^{DrNCWadhawail} 0W2I aild Sllaiilla PW39 The sample^was takenby the GovernmentFood InspectorChuni Pal 6PWI 111 the presence of Sharlna PW3I The witnesseshad¹¹⁰ enmitywith theaccusedto falselyiinplicate him in this case The^evidence by^the provedOll recordthat thesampleofcows milk^nleantfor public^{salewasseizedfrom} theaccusedwhich was^sentto the Public AnalystHaryana for analysis^{whovide reportExE} foundthe^same adulterated^as mentioned above The thus incurred the liabilityof offence under Section16 1 read with Section70f the Act In fact learned counsel for the could not seriouslychallenge^thc prosecutton^case duringthe^course of argumentwhich stands provedOtl record

¶36

As such COllVlCt1011of Salamudinunder Scction read with Section 70f the Act as recorded by both the Courts below 1S maintained However keepingin view the facts and Clrculnstances of the case particularlythe fact that Sword of Damocles has remainedhangingover the head of Salainudin for the Iast lllOre than twentyyears^as the^case relatesto 15101989 and the petitioner

¶37

hasfaced incarcerationfor 19 daysI^am ofthe consideredopinionthat ends

¶38

JOYTI RANI met if the sentence sentence awarded to tlle petitioner petitioner 2016.03.28 16:21 is I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Parkash Om2012.09.28 is ofjustice15: 39^willbe met if the sentence sentence awarded to tlle petitioner petitioner True Scanned Copy Of Original rcducedPHHC,Chandigarhto the periodalready by^hiin and sentenceof Ilne is

¶40

¶41

¶42

CrleRevneNO1602 of2003

¶43

¶44

1 0 C I C Z

¶45

enhancedto Rs0001 I order by the sentence order The wiIl depositthe amountof fine in the trial Court within^a period^{oftwomonthsfromthedateof} receipt^{ofacertitledcopy} of^this order^{Needless tosay} if^the fails^to the diorectionof

¶46

the ainount of fine of Rs0001 in^{thetrialCourt} wltllitl^the period above the sentence of rigorous as awarded by^{both the Courts belowshall remain unaltered}

¶47

With theaboveconditional^{modificationinthe sentence}

¶48

Orderthis petitionis dismissed

¶49

March 04 2010 1
Z Jl 1 JUDGE
r
06
r
7
Z
Qu
1

¶50

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

Parkash Om 2012.09.28 15: 39 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

Salamuddin v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salamuddin v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulatia Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Prem Rattan Vs State of Haryana

Karamjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab