LAWS(MAD)-1992-12-35

GOPAL Vs. STATE

Decided On December 16, 1992
GOPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C.No.43 of 1985, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, petitioner was convicted under Sections 7(1), 10(1)(a)(i) read with 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two more months. Aggrieved petitioner challenged the sustainability of his conviction and consequential sentence in C.A. No.94 of 1987 before the Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli. Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is as follows: P.W.1 Food Inspector, Srivaikundam Municipality, stopped the petitioner at or about 5 a.m. on 1-12-1984, when he was carrying a mixure of cow and buffalo milk for sale and intimated his intention to take sample of the milk in his possession, for the purpose of analysis. After observing formalities ordained by law; P.W.1 purchased 750 Ml. of milk after paying Rs.2/- is sale consideration to the petitioner. P.W.2 Sanitary Inspector who was present with P.W.I attested the seizure Mahazar. Milk sample, on analysis was found to be deficient in non-fat solid to the extent of 57% and deficient in fat to the extent of 44%. After service of intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act subsequent to initiation of prosecution, Petitioner faced his trial, but did not choose to exercise his option to forward another sample to the Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) Both the courts below accepted the prosecution case and rejected the defence, that sampling was not done in accordance with law and further the milk was not intended for sale. Petitioner was dealt with as stated earlier.