RAM PRAKASH Vs. STATE AND M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ram Parkash (who gave himself out as Ram Pershad in some documents executed on 18th Feb., 1971) was convicted of an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide his Judgment dated 23rd of April, 1973 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rupees one thousand in default of payment of fine, he was awarded further rigorous imprisonment for three months. One Pishori Lal Dawar who was proprietor of M/s. Rajesh Dairy too was tried along with him as being employer of the petitioner and he too was convicted of the said offence and sentenced likewise. Both of them preferred appeal against their conviction and sentence. While the appeal of Pishori Lal was accepted and his conviction as well as sentence set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, appeal preferred by the petitioner failed and his conviction as well as sentence was maintained vide judgment dated 30th March, 1977. Feeling dissatisfied, he has come up in this revision.

(2.) The prosecution version, succinctly, is that on 18th Feb., 1971, the Food Inspector R.C. Kapur (PW 3) spotted the petitioner, at about 9.15 A.M. while he was selling milk to a customer near Carry Home Ice Cream Factory at Khan Market, New Delhi. The petitioner was carrying four milk cans of big size on a cycle. Another Food Inspector, H.R. Dewan, and his sample box carrier happened to be with Shri Kapur. So he disclosed his identity to the petitioner and notified his intention to take a sample of milk being sold by him. The petitioner informed him that he was selling cow's milk and showed the indication to that effect on all the four milk cans in his possession. The petitioner further told the Food Inspector that he was an employee of Pishori Lal Dawar, proprietor of Rajesh Dairy, 110 Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and that he was selling milk for and on behalf of his master. Thereupon, the Food Inspector tried to contact some public witnesses and associate them in the sample taking but in vain. So he lifted the sample of cow's milk as per procedure laid dowrn under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He also arrested the petitioner as some suspicion arose about his real identity and produced him before Shri S L. Malhotra, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The petitioner was released on bail on his furnishing a bond as directed. One counter-part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, disclosing that the sample milk was adulterated due to 1.71 deficiency in milk solids not fat percent which was equivalent to 20.1 percentage deficiency in milk solids not-fat (percentage added water). Prosecution was launched against the petitioner by the Municipal Prosecutor of New Delhi Municipal Committee, Shri R.C. Sharma.

(3.) In his examination, under Sec. 342 Code of Criminal Procedure (Old), the petitioner denied the prosecution version and took up the stand that he had been supplying the milk of various dairies, for instance Sukhdev dairy etc. to M/s. Carry Home Ice Cream Factory. On the date of alleged sample taking too he had earlier supplied milk to the said factory but then the Food Inspector and Mr. Sudhir Chona proprietor of the said factory called him from outside and obtained his signatures and thumb impressions on various papers under duress and undue influence, since, he was unable to gratify the Food Inspector by paying Rs. 200.00 as demanded. Then he was produced before the Court. He asserted that the sample in question had been actually taken from Sudhir Chona and he had been made scape-goat for the real culprit became of the collusion between Food Inspector and Sudhir Chona. He explained that he had nothing to gain by selling adulterated milk, inasmuch as benefit, if any, could be derived by the owner of the milk and not him. However, he denied that he was the employee of his co-accused Pishori Lal,