DILBAR AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19.7.73, appellant Ram Kartar was driving a truck with 20 milk cans. 4 Food Inspectors took 4 samples from 4 milk cans. Driver on enquiry told Inspectors that Dildar Ahmed owned the truck and the milk. Both were prosecuted on the Sample being found adulterated and were convicted. Their first appeals were dismissed and they moved High Court with the grievance that is new Cr. P. C,, 1973, had come into force they were not heard before sentence. Plea was negatived as prosecution had begun under old Act. After narrating above facts. Judgment para 15 onwards is :-

(2.) Now I come to the merits of the present case. First of all I will take up the case of Dildar Ahmed. Admittedly, he was not present at the time the samples were taken into possession. The prosecution case is that he was the owner of the truck in which 18 or more cans containing cow's milk were being carried. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no direct evidence to show that the milk, which was being taken for sale by the other petitioner, belonged to Dildar Ahmad. The only evidence is that the co-accused Ram Kartar had stated to S. B. Sharma, P. W, 3 that the milk belonged to Dildar Ahmad and that he was working as a driver only.

(3.) Shri B. T. Singh, the learned counsel for the Corporation, has also referred to the statement of V. B. Sharma, P. W. 8, who has deposed that Dildar Ahmad had been supplying milk to Attar Pal and Chhida Mal. Both these persons had not been examined by the prosecution. So the statement of V. B. Sharma cannot be taken in evidence, being inadmissible.