RAJMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajmal, appellant herein, was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 vide order dated 12th May, 1986 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Against this order of sentence and conviction appellant filed an appeal which was beard and disposed of by the Add). Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his order dated 21.2.81 reducing the sentence from one year to six months R.I. and fine from Rs. 3,000.00 to Rs. l,000.00 and in default to undergo R.I. for two months more. With these observations the appeal was disposed of.

(2.) It is against these impugned orders that the present Revision has been filed inter alia on the grounds that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have completely ignored the fact that the sample which was taken was not Khoa but was Dhap. In the rules under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the percentage of fat in Dhap has not been prescribed. The Dhap being not Khoa the Public Analysis Report could not have been used against the petitioner. Moreover, the right of the appellant to get the sample analysed from the nearby food laboratory was deprived as the sample in the meantime bad de-composed on account of non putting of formalin and other preservatives.

(3.) inorder to appreciate the contention raised at the Bar, the brief facts of the case are that, on 9.2.79, Food Inspector found the appellant selling Dhap. This according to the prosecution, appellant was carrying for sale. He Was apprehended near Physical Education Centre of M.C.D. opposite Railway Station. The total quantity appellant was carrying weigh 25 Kgs. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 750 gms. of Dhap for the purpose of analysis. All the formalities were completed after adding 20 drops of formalin to each bottle. Notice in Form VI was served Upon the appellant. Panchnama was prepared. Counter part of the sample alongwith Memorandum issued in Form-VII was sealed. Sample was sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis it was found to be adulterated being deficit by 6.86% in milk fat. Sanction for prosecuting appellant was obtained and thereafter case was filed.