KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been placed before a Division Bench by the orders of my lord the Chief Justice upon a reference made by one of us owing to difference of opinion that exists on the question whether sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is only mandatory or directory. Since the entire case has been placed before Division Bench and we propose to deal with it on the merits as well, is necessary to notice a few relevant facts. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the said Act and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the appeal filed by him against which he has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector of the Corporation (Mr. M. C. Sanghi) purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk (a sample from the diary of the petitioner) which was being sold to customers in the presence of another Food Inspector (Shri R.K. Bhannot) and yet another person Shri Jaggee (said to be a rat catcher of the Corporation) on 22-5-68 at 5.45 a.m. The sample was divided into three equal parts by putting them into dry and clean bottles. The bottles were sealed, one of which was handed over both; accused-petitioner under a receipt and the other was sent to the public analyst, whose report revealed that the same was adulterated due to 0.7 deficiency in fat (2.8 per cent) as against the requisite 3.5 per cent, equivalent to 20.0 per cent deficiency.

(3.) Both the Courts below have acted on the evidence of the witnesses in relation to purchasing of the sample from the petitioner. The petitioner totally denied the allegations made against him including his own signatures made on the relevant documents prepared in connection with the said purchase and seizure of the sample.