RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Paurigarhwal. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the State. According to the prosecution case, the applicant was carrying 5 litres of milk and he was going towards the market of Paurigarhwal when the sample in question was taken by the Food Inspector. It was sent for analysis and found to be adulterated being deficient both in fat contents and in nonfatty solids, to the extent of 8 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. The accused-applicant denied that he was taking the milk for sale His plea was that he was serving as a peon in the Government College and on that date viz. 3rd July, 78 he was carrying this milk on the instruction of the Principal of the said College, in connection with a farewell party to be given to the Students. This defence was not accepted by the courts below and the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) The accused applicant has produced himself as a witness and has given the aforesaid statement, as mentioned above. He has also produced the Principal of the College who has Come forward to depose that the milk was being taken by his servant for him in connection with a birth day party to be given to the Students. Thus so far as the statement of the accused supported by a respectable witness like the Principal, is concerned, there can be no doubt that the milk was being taken for a party. No reason has been given by the courts below for rejecting the reliable testimony of the Principal of the College. The applicant himself is a Government servant. He was merely carrying five litres of milk. It goes without saying that a person who takes milk for sale, will take a large quantity. Thus the defence of the applicant that he was taking five litres for a farewell party appears to be correct. There is no reason why it should be rejected. Meticulous distinction, which has been drawn by the court below in the statement of the accused, as well as the Principal is in my opinion not a material distinction, which could affect the merits of the defence. On a totality of the circumstances, and the evidence on the record, I am satisfied fully that the milk which was taken by the applicant on the date, time and place in question was not for purpose of sale, but was being carried by him for farewell party. In these circumstances, it can not be said that the sale to the Food Inspector was a sale within the meaning of the Act. Thus the prosecution of the applicant is misconceived and the impugned order of the courts below are perverse as such they call for interference.