RAM RIKH Vs. STATE AND M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20th March 1975 at about 7.30 a.m. Food Inspector U.S. Dabas (P.W. 1) visited the dairy of the accused Ram Rikh at No. 1 Minto Road, New Delhi. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused and purchased 660 millilitre of buffalo's milk on payment of Rs. 1.70 as the price of the milk. The sample milk was taken out of a can containing 7 litres of milk. The Food Inspector after stirring the milk divided it in three equal parts and poured it in three clean and dry bottles and sealed the bottles. 18 drops of formalin were also added in each bottle. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found the sample to be adulterated due to 2.4 deficiency in milk fat per cent. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Municipal Prosecutor filed a complaint under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused.

(2.) The accused in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not challenge the fact that a sample of milk was taken from him on 20th March 1975. The defence taken is that the sample taken was of cow's milk. The accused stated that he had told the Food Inspector at the spot that he was selling the cow's milk but the Food Inspector had wrongly noted in the memo Ex. PC that the milk sold was buffalo's milk. The accused further stated that after some time when he showed the notice to a person knowing English he was told that in the notice it was written that the sample taken was of buffalo's milk and on that he had immediately made a report at the police station Kamla Market and also written a letter to the Food Inspector mentioning that the sample taken was of cow's milk and not of buffalo's milk as mentioned in the notice. The accused in support of his defence examined three witnesses. Pritam Singh (D.W. 1) merely testified in regard to the good character of the accused. D.W. 2 gave evidence that there were number of dairies at Minto Road and that the Corporation had not issued any licences after a circular was issued in regard to the dairies run by the Corporation. D.W. 3 testified that he was present at the time when the Food Inspector lifted the sample of milk from the accused and the accused had told the Food Inspector that the milk was cow's milk and the Food Inspector had said that he would make a note to that effect, that after some time the accused had come to him and showed to him the notice and on seeing the document he had told the accused that the Food Inspector had in the notice mentioned buffalo's milk, that thereafter the accused had gone to the police station and lodged the report Ex. DW 3/A. In cross-examination the witness slated that the accused keeps buffaloes as well as cows.

(3.) The two courts below have disbelieved the defence version and believed the prosecution case and I find no reason to take a different view in revision. The sample of milk was taken by U.S. Dabas Food Inspector and the seizure memo was attested by P.W. 4 Vir Bhan Sharma, Food Inspector and Anand Singh. Both Dabas and Vir Bhan Sharma have given evidence that the accused was selling buffalo's milk in a container containing about 7 litres of milk and that the sample taken was of buffalo's milk. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of the above said witnesses to show that they had any motive to prepare a false document showing that the milk taken was of buffalo's milk whereas in fact the sample taken was of cow's milk. The accused in his statement under section 313 has stated that after the sample was taken be had showed the notice to a man knowing English and he had told him that in the notice it was noted that the sample taken was of buffalo'a milk and on that he had made a report at the police station and also written a letter to the Food Inspector. The suggestion made to P.W. 4 in cross-examination was that at the spot the accused had told the Food Inspector that the sample was of cow's milk but in spite of that he had written in the documents the sample to be of buffalo's milk and the people present there had protested and told the Food Inspector that he should record what was being told to him by the accused. The above suggestion is inconsistent with the plea taken in the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. The Food Inspector had prepared the documents Exs. PA, PB and PC at the spot and in all these documents it is written that the sample is of buffalo's milk. The said documents are thumb marked by the accused. It is difficult to believe that if the sample taken was of cow's milk, the Food Inspector would have made an incorrect entry in the seizure memo and other documents that the sample is of buffalo's milk. It appears that the accused had made the report at the police station and written a letter to the Food Inspector only to create a defence.