PARASADI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Parsadi is convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000.00 and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. His conviction and the sentence passed against him were confirmed on appeal by the Additional Session Judge, Delhi, and the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against his conviction and the sentence passed against him.

(2.) The prosecution case against him is that on 25.1.1972 at about 7.15 A.M. the petitioner was carrying milk in two cans on a cycle. The Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation intercepted him near Chhapar Wala Chowk, Harkishan Dass Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The milk which the petitioner was carrying did not bear any indication whether it was cow's milk or buffalo milk. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed by the Act, he sent a sample of the milk to the Public Analyst, who reported that the milk was adulterated due to 1.09 deficiency in milk fat per cent equivalent to 31.6 percentage of deficiency in milk fat according to the standard prescribed for buffalo milk.

(3.) That the prosecution examined 4 witnesses in the trial Court of whom P.W. 1 is Shri Navnit Lal, Food Inspector, who purchased the milk from the petitioner and P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. Shri Om Prakash and Vidya Sagar respectively were alleged to be present at the time P.W. 1 purchased the milk from the petitioner. Whereas P.Ws. 1 and 4 supported the prosecution case, P.W. 3 did not support it and was treated as hostile as he stated that he was not present at the time of the purchase of the milk. The petitioner who was examined under section 342 Cr. P.C., while admitting that the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, purchased the milk from him, however stated that he was not carrying the milk for sale as such but that he was taking it to his shop for preparation of tea. He also stated that there was a chit on the cans indicating that the milk was cow's milk. He examined two witnesses in defence who stated that the petitioner has a shop where he sold tea and cow's milk and that there was a board at the shop indicating that it was cow's milk. Both the learned lower Courts have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 and have rejected the evidence of P.W. 3 as well as that of the defence witnesses. P.W. 3's evidence was rightly rejected in view of the fact that he was an attesting witness to the memo prepared at the time of the purchase of the milk by P.W. 1 according to which the milk which the petitioner was carrying did not bear any indication that it was cow's milk or buffalo's milk. The evidence of the two defence witnesses is of no consequence. The defence version is obviously an afterthought and based upon the alteration appearing in the memo Ex. P/B. It would appear that the Food Inspector, P.W. i, started by writing "cow" and immediately thereafter changed it into the words "milk without indication". P.W. 1 was, however, not cross-examined on this point and, therefore, he had no opportunity to explain this alteration. The courts below were, therefore, right in not drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution from this alteration. It is obvious on a perusal of this memo Ex. P/B that the Food Inspector has just started to write the word "cow" when he realised that the milk bore no indication, therefore, he immediately corrected the entry. If there was an alteration by the Food Inspector at a subsequent stage, then the word "milk" also should have been found after the word "cow". But there is no such word in the memo. Therefore, I see no valid reason to differ from the findings of the learned Lower Courts that the milk which the petitioner had sold to the Food Inspector did not bear any indication that it was cow milk or buffalo milk.