MADAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein Madan Lal was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - by Shri J.D. Kaptior, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In default of payment of fine he was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and the sentence have been upheld by Shri J.D. Jain (then Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi) vide his judgement dated Jan., 16, 1978.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations were that on Aug., 4, 1976, at about 5.30 P.M. Food Inspector M.L. Chawla accompanied by another Food Inspector M.L. Sharma visited the petitioner's shop. They found 20 litres of milk contained in, the drum bearing the inscription "cow's milk" After disclosing his identity, Food Inspector Chawla purchased 660 mls. of milk as sample for analysis on payment of Rs. 1,30 P. as its price vide the receipt, Exhibit P.A. Prior to the payment of price he had thoroughly stirred the milk stored in the drum and had also issued notice Exhibit P.B. to the petitioner. The milk so purchased was divided. into three equal parts which was thereafter transferred to three clean bottles. He added 18 drops of formalin in each bottle as preservative. The three bottles were duly sealed.

(3.) THE testimony of the Food Inspector P.W. 2 M.L. Chawla and P.W. 3 M.L. Sharma shows that 660 mls. of milk purchased was a representative sample of milk contained in the drum. This version of the official witnesses, however, is at variance with the testimony of the public witness P.W. Ramji Dass who, according to the prosecution's own showing, was present throughout the proceedings at the shop of the petitioner. He has categorically stated that out of the drum containing 20 litres of cow's milk Food Inspector had poured 220 mls in one bottle, 220 mls. in the second bottle and 220 mls. in the third bottle. According to him, 660 mls. of milk were not taken out of the container at the same time. This witness was permitted to be cross -examined by the Additional Municipal Prosecutor on the plea that the witness was suppressing the truth. The order reads : "At this stage A.M.P. requests that the witness is not speaking the truth and he may be allowed to cross -examine the witness. Request allowed."