SHANMUGHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 (1) read with 2 (i-a) (M) and Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the act, and the sentences of simple imprisonment for three months and the fine of rs. 1, 000/- in default to undergo S. I. for three months by the learner Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, which were confirmed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly stated as follows: THE Food Inspector P. W. 1 stopped the accused on 3-2-1982 at about 9. 15 a. m, who was carrying milk for sale in brass pots on his bycycle, and after disclosing his identity has purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk for Rs. 1. 62 and obtained a receipt Ex. P. 2. He also served a copy of the form VI Ex. P. 1 on the accused. THEreafter, he divided the sample milk into three equal portions, poured into three clean, empty, dry bottles, added 18 drops of formalin preservative to each portion, closed each bottle tightly with cark, wrapped each bottle with thick brown paper, pasted Local (Health)Authority with slip around brown paper on each bottle, obtained the signature of the accused on all bottles and then sealed the samples in the presence of the accused and P. W. 2. THEn P. W. 1 sent the bottle to the Public Analyst with a copy of Form VII on 4-2-1982 and also sent the remaining two bottles to the local (Health) Authority. THE Local Health Authority received the Public analyst's report Ex. P. 3 which is to the effect that the sample contained 4. 1% fat and therefore, the milk is not adulterated. It is further stated therein that milk solids nor fat was 7. 0%, which is deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of at least 17 per cent. After receipt of sanction order Ex. P. 4 prosecution was launched against the accused and intimation Ex. P. 5 was sent to the accused about the filing of the case against him, and the intimation was acknowledged by the accused under Ex. P. 6. THEreafter a complaint was filed against the accused. In support of the same, the prosecution examined the Food inspector P. W. 1 and three other witnesses namely P. W. 2 witness to the mahazar, P. W. 3 Local (Health) Authority and P. W. 4 another Food Inspector, and filed Ex. P. 1 to P. 4. THE plea of the accused is one of denial. THE learned sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the reasons assigned in his judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. He was unsuccessful before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the revision.