DHUNNOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Dhunnoo 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 R.I. for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 25-5-1977 at about 8.30 A.M. the applicant was carrying for sale about 13 kg. of goat milk and a sample taken by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated. According to the Public Analyst report dated 7-6-1977 the sample contained 4.7% fat contents but the non-fatty solids were merely 5.4% thereby showing a deficiency of about 40%. The applicants case was that the milk was not for sale but he was taking it for his sick child. This defence was rejected by the trial court on the cogent ground that 13 kg. quantity of milk itself ruled out the defence version. The argument does not appear to have been repeated before the lower appellate court. I see no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court on this point.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant tried to reiterate the arguments about the invalidity of the sanction Ex. Ka-6 given on the Food Inspectors report Ex. Ka-5. The report contains the following note