RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision No. 53 of 2003 has been preferred by the revisionist Rajendra Kumar s/o Shri Jai Chand r/o near Police Station Gadarpur, ward No. 3 Police Station, Gadarpur, district Udham Singh Nagar against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani, district Nainital whereby criminal appeal No. 30 of 1999 arising out against the judgment and order dated 25.11.1999 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in criminal case No. 1389 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment was dismissed and conviction was affirmed.

(2.) THE facts, as stated in the complaint filed by Shri M.S. Bisht, Food Inspector, Gadarpur are that on 18.07.1996 at 9 p.m. at Dineshpur, accused Rajendra Kumar was apprehended carrying a milk container on his motor -cycle. Milk was intended for sale and milk sample was taken. The license for milk vending was demanded from him, but, he could not produce the license. The vendor told the Food Inspector that he is carrying the milk of cow -buffalo for sale. The Food Inspector got suspicious that the milk might be adulterated and therefore, he, in the presence of Banwari Lal and another Food Inspector Sri N.K. Joshi purchased a sample of milk for 6/ - and issued receipt thereof. The Food Inspector obtained the signature of the accused/revisionist on Form VI. He took the sample in three clean, dry and empty small bottles, introduced 20 drops of 40 percent formalin and sealed the bottles. He pasted level over the same and obtained the signatures of accused/revisionist. He obtained the signatures of the vendor on each sample and affixed the seal duly signed by C.M.O. He prepared Form VII in six copies. A sample along with Form VII was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow and two samples were kept in the office of C.M.O., Nainital along with Form VII. According to the report of Public Analyst there was deficit of 7 percent milk fat and 8 percent non fatty milk solids. The milk was found to be adulterated. The prosecution sanction was obtained on the basis of the report of Public Analyst and the complaint was filed.

(3.) SO far as the compliance of Rules 16 and 17 by the Chief Food Inspector is concerned, learned trial court has held that all the three samples were sealed by the Chief Food Inspector after taking one part and memo of Form VII was sent to Public Analyst and rest of two samples along with memo of Form VII were sent to Local Health Authority as per rules. There was compliance of Rules 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.