AMAR NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against order dated 22-3-1969 of Shri C.D. Sharma, MIC., Delhi, whereby he directed that Amar Nath be also proceeded against as co-accused in the case pending against Munshi, a milk vendor under Sec. 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly he framed charge against the petitioner for the said offence on 28-3-1969 on the basis of the evidence already recorded.

(2.) Shortly put the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the food inspector Balraj Kochhar lifted a sample of cow's milk on 27-11-1968 at about 6.45 A.M. from the milk can of Munshi, who was bringing the milk for supply to Amar Nath petitioner. The sample milk was found to be adulterated and accordingly a complaint was instituted against by the AMP on 6-2-1969. During the course of prosecution evidence, Amar Nath petitioner was examined as one of the prosecution witnesses being an attesting witness to the sample taking as well as inventory Ext. PC. The prosecution version is that the sample was taken when Munshi was bringing the milk for supply to Amar Nath and had almost reached his shop. During the course of his examination, Amar Nath petitioner deposed that the sample of milk was taken from the utensil which belonged to him and which was lying at his shop. He proceeded on to say that the accused Munshi had already poured the milk in his utensil when sample was taken by the food inspector. However, he admitted having made notes B to B and C to C on the inventory Ext. PC. In the first note he stated that the sample of cow's milk had been taken from Munshi in his presence on payment of 66 paise as price thereof and after service of notice to him (Munshi). In the latter he stated that Munshi used to sell cow's milk to him and he had brought the milk for supply to him when sample was taken from him (Munshi). In the court too. he stated that the food inspector paid the price of the milk as well as served notice for taking sample on Munshi and that he handed over one sample bottle to Munshi accused. However, he was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the AMP. During cross-examination by the AMP he denied the prosecution suggestion that the sample of milk was taken from a can, which was in possession of the accused Munshi; he retreated that the sample of milk was taken from the can belonging to him, which was lying at his shop. However, he admitted that Munshi accused had 2 or 3 cans of milk and that he recorded his notes on the inventory Ext. PC on the basis of what happened in his presence. He admitted that Munshi had been supplying milk to him for the last 10/11 years During cross-examination by the accused the petitioner stated that the food inspector first wanted to take sample of milk from him, but on his objection that he should take sample from the milk vendor when he was actually present there, the food inspector took the sample of milk from Munshi. He denied the suggestion that some milk was already contained in his 'tub'. In reply to a court question, he stated that the accused had already poured 2 cans of milk in his drum and he was pouring the milk from the third can when the food inspector arrived there.

(3.) It was on the basis of this statement that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner was concerned in the commission of crime and invoking the provisions of S. 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he directed him to be made a co-accused along with Munshi and, therefore, he even framed a charge against him accordingly. The Magistrate . then asked the petitioner to cross-examine any of the P.Ws. it he so desired.