CHUNI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chuni Lal son of Kesar Dass, resident of Kishan Nagar, New Delhi, was prosecuted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the court of Shri S.L Malhotra, Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the accused went in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by Shri J.D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge who confirmed the conviction and sentence. Against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the accused has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is this. On 2nd July, 1969, at about 7 P.M., PW. 1, R.C. Kapur, Food Inspector, visited the milk supply depot of the accused at shop No 1-B, Naroji Nagar Market, New Delhi. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused and purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused on payment of Re. 1/- as its price, for the purposes of analysis. There was no sign board hung up at the shop indicating the source and the quality of the milk. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three equal parts. The Food Inspector added 16 drops of formalin in each bottle. One part of the sample was given to the accused ; one part was sent to the Public Analyst ; and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on 3rd July, 1969 and found the sample to be deficient in milk fat contents by 4.2% and milk solids not fat contents 0.48% according to the standard prescribed for Buffalo milk. On the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Municipal prosecutor filed a complaint under sections 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act against the accused. The accused in his statement under section 342 Crimial P.C. has totally denied the allegations of the prosecution.

(3.) On behalf of the accused it was contended by Shri Rao, Advocate, that the Food Inspector did not join any independent witness from the public to witness the taking of the sample and had thereby committed a breach of the provisions of section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and this renders the conviction illegal. I regret I am unable to accept this contention of the counsel. R.C. Kapur (PW 1) deposed that he requested the customer, who was purchasing the milk from the accused, to witness the taking of the sample but he did not agree. P.W. 1 further stated that he contacted the neighbouring shop keepers of the accused to witness the taking of the sample but they also did not agree. From the statement of P.W. 1 it is evident that he made efforts to associate with him independent witnesses at the time of the taking of the sample but no one was willing to witness the taking of the sample. P.W. 1 was left with no alternative but to request his colleague Food Inspector to witness the taking of the sample. In Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1967 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dina Nath) Honourable the Chief Justice H R. Khanna (as his Lordship then was) and Honourable Mr. Justice P.N. Khanna observed:-