JAGDISH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted on two counts under sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling foodstuff without licence he has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default one month's R.I. and for having in possession at his shop adulterated milk for sale he has been sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default three months' further rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Admittedly the applicant has an eatables shop near a cinema house in the town of Kairana in District Muzaffarnagar. The prosecution case was that it was a tea, milk and snacks shop. Also that the Food Inspector on 4-12-1977 at about 4 P.M. took a sample of milk from the shop. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 16-1-1978 found his buffalo milk sample to contain only 4.3 per cent fat contents as against the prescribed 6 per cent. The applicant's case was that the milk was not for sale and that he never sold any milk and only sold tea. The courts below did not accept this defence.

(3.) The argument about the milk not being for sale was reiterated in this Court but the Explanation to Sec. 7 introduced by Act 34 of 1976 provides inter alia that for the purpose of Sec. 7 a person shall be deemed to store adulterated food if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale. Therefore, keeping of adulterated buffalo milk in a tea shop for use in making of tea for sale would be a breach of Sec. 7 and the stand of the applicant even if accepted to be correct cannot absolve him of the offence.