ESAYAKI KONAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli convicting the, revision petitioner, of the offence punishable under S. 7(i) read with S. 16(1)(a)(i) and S. 2(i)(a) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 1000.

(2.) P .W. 1 Sundararajan, Food Inspector attached to Tirunelveli Municipality, took a sample of 750 ml. of milk from the revision petitioner on 7 -7 -1982 at about 7:15 a.m. which the revision petitioner was selling near Kambukadai Street, Tirunelveli, after observing all the formalities. He sealed the milk so purchased in three clean dry bottles and added formalin, a preservative, and then corked them and sent two bottles to the Local (Health) Authority and one to the Public Analyst, Guindy. The report of the Analyst Ex. P6 shows that the sample is deficient in solids -not -fat to the extent of at least 30 per cent. The Food Inspector filed a complaint on 12 -8 -1982, and then sent a notice under S. 13(2) of the Act with Form No. III separately.

(3.) IT cannot be disputed that the milk is adulterated and the report of the Analyst, Ex. P6 shows that the sample was deficient in solids -not -fat to the extent of at least 30 per cent. The contention of the revision petitioner was that the milk was intended for the marriage of his brother -in -law. In fact, the defence has filed Ex. D1, an invitation, and also examined D.W.1, brother -in -law of the revision petitioner, who got married on that day. Both the courts have concurrently found that this invitation Ex. D1 is one got up for the occasion. On that view, the courts below also did not believe the evidence of D.W.1 and came to the conclusion that the invitation is one that was got up at a later occasion.