CHHOTELAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 17.1.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Cr.A.No.47/97, aris-ing out of the judgment dated 28.4.1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Cr. Case No .2121/911 whereby conviction recorded by the CJM, Raigarh and sentence imposed upon the applicant, has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 12.6.1991 Food Inspector R.K. Bhargav (PW3) intercepted the applicant at Chhatamuda-Sarangarh road while the applicant was going to sell milk. On being asked, the appli-cant told R.K. Bhargav (PW3) that he is carrying cow's milk. On being examined, there was a sus-picion that the milk is adulterated and therefore, written and oral information was given to the vendor (applicant) under Form 6 by the Food Inspector and he purchased 750 ml milk from the applicant for Rs.4.50 and obtained a receipt thereof. Thereafter, the purchased milk was sealed in three separate vials in accordance with law, Panchanama was prepared at the spot in the presence of witnesses and one of the samples was sent to the public analyst, Bhopal and the remaining two samples were deposited in the of-fice of the Local (Health) Authority and a receipt in lieu thereof was obtained. As per report dated 17,7.1991 of the public analyst, Bhopal and let-ter dated 29.7.1991 of the Local (Health) Au-thority, the samples of milk taken from the appli-cant were found to be adulterated. After com-pleting the proceedings in accordance with law. the Food Inspector submitted the charge sheet against the applicant before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Raigarh.

(3.) Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short "the Act, 1954") against the applicant, who abjured his guilt. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined four witnesses in all. Statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, in which he denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and stated that he is an agriculturist by profession and not a milk vendor. He has never gone to Raigarh for selling milk. He also examined Kurso and Punauram in his defence as DW 1 and DW 2.