LAKSHARI Vs. STATE AND M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted to six months R.I and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 under Sec. 7 read with sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The conviction is based on the fact that a sample of milk taken from the petitioner by the Food Inspector was found to be substandard and thus was adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The facts are that the petitioner was carrying milk on a bicycle on 28.6.74 at 7.15 A.M. in the morning when the Food Inspector took a sample from him after paying the necessary amount. The sample was taken near shop No. 245, Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi. At the same time, the petitioner had no licence to sell milk.

(2.) The Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced him on both charges i.e. for selling adulterated milk and for selling milk without a licence. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the conviction in regard to selling milk without licence on the ground that in respect of the same offence only one conviction can be maintained. I say nothing about the correctness of that acquittal.

(3.) Turning now to the present case of selling adulterated milk, it has been pointed out to me that the charge was of conveying milk. I think this makes a very little difference because a Food Inspector can take a sample from a person conveying food article and when that article is purchased by a Food Inspector it becomes a sale within the meaning of the Act. There is nothing illegal in the conviction on this footing, the next question for determination is whether the defence of the accused, namely, that he was a mere labourer carrying milk on a bicycle for one Amar Singh and not a seller of milk makes any difference. As pointed out by the courts below this defence has not been established. The learned counsel urges that it was for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was a seller.