TALLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was prosecuted before the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 28-10-1966 at about 10 A.M. the petitioner was found selling milk at the Land & Housing Canteen, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. The Can which contained the milk did not bear any label to indicate whether it was skimmed milk or milk of a cow or buffalo. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of this milk and sent it for examination to the Public Analyst and the latter sent a report that the milk was adulterated in as much as there was a deficiency of 77.6 percent, in fact, according to the standards prescribed for buffalo milk.

(2.) The prosecution examined 4 witnesses in the trial court of whom P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the material witnesses. P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector and he stated that on the date of the offence he went to the Land & Housing Canteen, Vikas Bhawan and that the petitioner came there with the Can of milk on which there was no label and that he purchased 660 milli grams of milk from the petitioner for 50 paisa; poured this milk into 3 bottles, sealed them and gave one bottle to the petitioner and sent one bottle to the Public Analyst and kept the third with himself. Exh. P-l is the receipt the obtained from the petitioner for the payment of the price of the milk, Exh. P-B is the notice given by him to the petitioner for purchasing the milk, Exhibit P-C is the memo prepared for the division of this milk into 3 bottles and Exh. P-D is the memo he sent to Public Analyst and Exh. P-E is the report of the Public Analyst. P.W. 3 is one Harish Chander who is said to have been present when P.W. I purchased the sample of the milk from the petitioner. He did not, however, support the prosecution case because he stated that the milk was not purchased from the petitioner but was taken from the Canteen itself and that the petitioner came later. This witness further stated that it was represented to the Food Inspector that what was taken by him was not milk but only skimmed milk. P.W. 4 is another Food Inspector, who is said to have been present when P.W. 1 purchased milk from the petitioner and he fully corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1.

(3.) The petitioner in his examination under section 342 Cr. P.C. denied the allegations made against him and stated that he was merely a Carrier of the skimmed milk on behalf of his employer. He examined one witness in defence. Shri R.D. Misra, who is said to be the Secretary of the Land & Housing Department Canteen. He stated that the Canteen was purchasing only skimmed milk from the petitioner and that the petitioner was only employed by the Canteen as a Carrier.