RAMPHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rampher has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-8-1977 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicting him under Sec. 7/16(a)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to one year's R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in its default to six months' R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that on 26-11-1975 at about 2 p.m. N.N.Singh, Food Inspector Municipal Board, Azamgarh, went to Subzi-mandi, Azamgarh, and found the appellant taking milk for sale. In the presence of Satya Narain and Antoo Ram the Food Inspector purchased 750 grains of buffalo milk from the appellant on payment of its price and alter giving him the requisite notice the milk was placed in three phials one of which was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated as fat contents were less by 20% and non-fatty solid contents were less by 39%. Standard of the buffalo milk was applied. On receipt of this report the D.M.O.H., Azamgarh, sanctioned prosecution of the appellant and a compliant was filed against him.

(3.) The appellant denied the said charge According to him, he did not sell any milk to the Food Inspector nor signed any paper. He also stated that he was taking the milk for his relation when the Food Inspector took a portion of it without weighing it and obtained his thumb impressions by force. In support of its contention the prosecution examined N.N. Singh, Food Inspector aud Radhey Shyam Tiwari of Nagar Palika, Azamgarh. From the statements of these two witnesses it was evident that the appellant was actually carrying milk for sale on that date and time. It is further evident that the Food Inspector had purchased 750 grams of milk from him on payment of price and after conforming to all the requirements. I have not been referred to any such infirmity in his statement on the basis of which testimony may be discredited. The milk purchased was placed in three phials in the manner prescribed and the appellant's signatures were obtained on requisite papers. The price of the milk was also paid to him. There is no reason to doubt this part of his statement. In the trial court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that R.I. 18 was not complied with. The learned trial court has given plausible reasons for repelling this contention.