GYASI RAM Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. P.K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are that on June 27, 1975 at about 7 A.M. Food Inspector O.P. Gupta found the petitioner carrying four cans of cow's milk on a bicycle near Kalkaji. The Food Inspector took a sample of milk for analysis after paying its requisite price. The Public Analyst found the sample adulterated because of "3.2f deficiency in milk solids not fat per cent and 1.3 deficiency in milk fat per cent which are equivalent to 39.5 percentage deficiency in milk solids not fat (% added water)." During the trial the petitioner requested the trial court to send the other sample kept by the Food Inspector to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis. It was accordingly sent. The Director of Central Food Laboratory vide its report dated March 9, 1976 found the milk adulterated because of 0.1 % deficiency in milk fat only. The defence of the petitioner, as disclosed in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that the milk was not for sale. He also stated that he was carrying half a litre of cow's milk to his house when the Food Inspector asked to him to give the sample. The petitioner admitted that he had a licence for the sale of milk. The trial court found that the charge has been brought home to the petitioner and, therefore, convicted him. It sentenced the petitioner to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00.

(3.) I find that the trial court noticed the difference in the reports of Public Analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory and came to the conclusion that the sample bottle sent to the latter must have been tampered with. He, therefore, held that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory was not binding and conclusive. Elaborate reasons were given why the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the bottle must have been tampered with. Indeed, this was an exercise in futility since if there was any apprehension that the bottle had been tampered with, the Magistrate should not have sent the same for analysis to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Apparently the Magistrate was satisfied, when he examined the bottle, that it had not been tampered with. However, the lower appellate court corrected the trial magistrate on this aspect and held that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory was conclusive and binding and did override the report of the Public Analyst.