{"id":4089,"date":"2020-08-01T15:20:13","date_gmt":"2020-08-01T15:20:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=4089"},"modified":"2021-01-17T05:41:40","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T05:41:40","slug":"after-38-years-sc-acquits-man-accused-of-selling-adulterated-haldi-powder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/after-38-years-sc-acquits-man-accused-of-selling-adulterated-haldi-powder\/","title":{"rendered":"After 38 years SC acquits man accused of selling adulterated Haldi powder"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Pranjal Sharma | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 1st August 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After 38 years SC acquits man accused of selling adulterated Haldi powder<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

FACTS<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
  1. The present case is an appeal arising out of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the HC turned over the judgement of the trial court and acquitted the appellant for offences under Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the\u00a0\u00a0 Act for selling adulterated Haldi power, when he did not even have the license to even sell Haldi power.<\/li>
  2. On the 18th of August 1982, the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the shop of the accused-appellant in the presence of the witnesses and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in the shop of accused, and the Inspector purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder and a sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst who then reported that the sample contained four\u00a0living\u00a0mealworms\u00a0and\u00a0two live\u00a0weevils.<\/li>
  3. \u00a0The\u00a0trial\u00a0court acquitted the appellant and upon appeal, the High Court impugned judgment of trial court & convicted the appellant under Section 2 (la) (f) of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000\/\u00ad in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month under Section 16 (lA) of the Act & under\u00a0Section\u00a016\u00a0(1)\u00a0(a)\u00a0(ii)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0for\u00a0selling\u00a0Haldi\u00a0Powder without a license.<\/li>
  4. The appellant put forth the contention that the public analyst the sample did not mention that it was either \u2018insect-infested\u2019 or was \u2018unfit for human consumption\u2019 & that the appellant went unrepresented in the High Court as the advocate representing the appellant did not appear in Court.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    RULE OF LAW<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

     Section 16(1A) read along with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n