RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on Oct. 30, 1976, and sentenced to R.I. for 9 months and to a fine of Rs. 1500.00 in default whereof to R.I. for 6 months. He was further convicted for selling milk without licence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default whereof to R.I. for 3 months. Upon appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) On Jan. 14, 1976, at about 8.45 A.M. the petitioner was carrying in two cans about 25 litres of cow's milk for sale. The Food Inspector purchased a sample in respect of which the Public Analyst later on reported that the milk fat content was 0.5%. This fell short of fat content prescribed for cows milk, but the Public Analyst also gave the opinion that the sample was misbranded as cows milk because it was in fact skimmed milk. The accused contended that he was not selling cows milk but he was carrying skimmed milk. He also appears to have made an application next day i.e. on Jan. 15, 1976 to the Municipal Health Officer that he told the Inspector that the milk he was carrying was "separated" and yet the Food Inspector described it as cows milk. Both the courts below have rejected this contention and have held that it was a sale of a misbranded article and therefore, the accused was not entitled even to reduction of sentence.

(3.) The facts are not seriously disputed, but it is urged that if a man is convicted under section 16 for sale of adulterated food stuff, then, he cannot be convicted for selling that article without licence. It was further contended that it was a case of sale of adulterated article and not of a misbranded article and the accused was entitled to reduction in sentence as laid down in the proviso to Sec. 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as it stood before its amendment on 1-4-1976.