VIR SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delhi Administration, through Legal Health Authority, filed a complaint against Vir Singh Chauhan for trial under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with the allegations that on 6.8.1986, at about 4.30 p.m., Food Inspector Pawan Vats while accompanied by other officials, visited M/s. Chauhan Dairy, 1867, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi and found Vir Singh Chauhan selling milk. There was no label declaration about the milk, i.e. whether it was cow milk or buffallow milk. Pawan Vats disclosed his identity and expressed his intention of taking a sample for analysis and after complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, purchased a sample of 750 mgs. of milk for which, he offered a sum of Rs.3.00, which, however was declined by Vir Singh Chauhan. The milk lying in the can was properly homegenised before taking the sample, which was divided in three equal parts and was poured 'into three clean and dry bottles. 20 drops of formaline were added in each of samples and same were properly marked, fastened and sealed as per the Act and Rules. Notice was served upon the accused, but he refused to sign the same and the other documents prepared at J the spot. One counter-part was deposited with the Public Analyst while two were deposited in the office. A report dated 7.8.1986 was received from the Public Analyst declaring the sample to be not confirming to the standards. The milk fat and milk solids not fat were found to be 5.6% as against the prescribed minimum limit of 6.0 percent and milk solid not fats 7.3.% as against the minimum limit of 9.0 percent. The plea taken up by the accused during trial was that no sample was purchased from him and he, in fact, was not present at Delhi on the date on which, the sample was stated to have been purchased. He had taken up the plea that in fact he was at Matiana in Shimla on that date. Learned trial court, however, convicted Vir Singh vide order dated 5.11.1988 and sentenced him to under go R.I. for 6 months with find of Rs.2000.00 and in default to under go S.I. for 2 months, vide order dated 7.11.1988.

(2.) Vir Singh Chauhan filed an appeal against his conviction, which came up before an Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.1993. Feeling aggrieved from his conviction and sentence, recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate and upheld by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vir Singh Chauhan has filed this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri K.B. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri O.P. Faizi, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record.