RAHMAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Rahmat Ali has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default further rigorous imprisonment for sit months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant was allegedly carrying mixture of cow and buffalo milk in the ratio of 1 : 3 for sale in two cans on a cycle, when a sample was taken by the Food Inspector and on analysis it was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst as it contained only 4% fat and only 7.3% non-fatty solids whereas the prescribed standard for cow's milk is 3.5% fat and 8.5% non-fatty solids and that for buffalo milk is 4.5% fat and 8.5% non-fatty solids. The applicant's defence that the milk was not for sale and was being taken by him to temple for worship has been rejected by the courts below and is no longer in point. Both the courts below found the case proved and convicted the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the three points discussed in the judgment of the lower appellate court. It was contended that there were no independent witnesses to the sample taking, Mohd. Shueb being a Octoroi Moharrir and Rais a Municipal Mistry, thus both being Municipal employees. The Food Inspector has, however, explained that he had asked the persons present to become witnesses but they declined whereupon these Municipal employees were taken as witnesses. In these circumstances it cannot be held that there was a breach of Sec. 10(7) of the Act because the duty of the Food Inspector is only to call independent witnesses. He cannot compel such persons to become witnesses of sample taking. Where the independent persons do not agree to become witnesses the departmental witnesses would be in order.