DEWAN CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, briefly stated, are these. On June 23, 1972 at II a.m., Food Inspector G.P. Suman lifted sample of Ice-cream weighing 900 grams from premises known as M/s. Deepak Ice Cream Factory situated at H-55, Beli Nagar, New Delhi, on payment of Rs. 3.00 to the petitioner against receipt after disclosing his identity as Food Inspector. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was adulterated due to 8.13 deficiency in milk fat by weight percent and 4.81 deficiency in total solids by weight percent, complaint was filed under proper authority.

(2.) The petitioner took up the stand that what he sold was "milk lolly" and not "ice cream". He came into the witness box as DW 1 and produced the sample bottle which had been handed over to him by the Food Inspector and stated that the writing "milk lolly" underneath "ice-cream" was in the hand of Food Inspector G.P. Suman who had given the assurance that he would mention "milk lolly" in other documents as well. Thereafter, at request made by the petitioner, Food Inspector G.P. Suman was recalled and writting "milk lolly" on the wrapper of the sample bottle in possession of the petitioner was shown to him. Food Inspector G.P. Suman denied the writting to be in his hand and ventured to add that it appeared to be in the hand writing of Gautam Parkash, one of the Assistants who happened to be along with him.

(3.) The Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that what had been sold by the petitioner was ice cream and the same was deficient in milk fat by 8.13 per cent and in total solids by 4.81 percent. Accordingly the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months by judgment dated Nov. 21, 1974. in appeal, the conviction and sentence were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated Nov. 9, 1976.