MOTI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 9-8-1966 at about 5-10 p.m. the petitioner was seen carrying cow's milk for sale. The Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased 600 Millilitre of milk from the petitioner, divided it into three portions, poured each portion into three separate bottles, sealed the bottles and gave one bottle to the petitioner and sent another bottle to the Public Analyst. The latter sent a report that the milk was adulterated. A challan was, therefore, filed against the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Act.

(3.) The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in the trial Court, of whom P.W. 1, Shri Garg, is the Food Inspector who purchased the sample of milk from the petitioner, and P.Ws. 4 and 5 are two other Food Inspectors of the Municipal Corporation who are said to have been present at that time and to have witnessed the purchase of the milk by P.W. 1 from the petitioner and the sealing of the said milk in three bottles. At the instance of the prosecution, the thumb impressions of the petitioner on the bond executed by the petitioner and on the challan were sent to the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, for comparison with the thump impression of the petitioner alleged to have been taken on Exhibits PA, PB and PC, the documents which were prepared "by P.W. 1 at the time of taking the sample from the petitioner. The Director of the Finger Print Bureau, however, sent a report saying that the thumb impressions sent to him were not fit for comparison.