CHHAJOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18-5-1982, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1982, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of the applicant under S.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of R.I. for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 2000/- recorded by the Munsif Magistrate First Class, Agra in Criminal Case No. 44 of 1980, vide order dated 5-2-1982.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated was that on 25-6-1976 at about 10.30 p.m. the Food Inspector found the applicant, selling milk in a Tanki of 40 litres capacity, containing 10 litres of milk. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity gave notice to the applicant and purchased 660 ml of milk after paying Rs. 1.30. He disclosed that the sample would be sent for analysis. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts, added formaline in each part and kept the sample in three dry and clean phials and sealed them on the spot. Spot memo was also prepared. One phial of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained 5.4% fat contents and 7.3% non - fatty solids. The sample was found deficient by 14% in non - fatty solids. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained sanction for prosecution from the Local Health Authority and filed a complaint against the applicant. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also sent along with the memorandum to the applicant by registered post at his address in compliance of the provisions of S.13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined Sri V.P. Sharma, Food Inspector (PWI), Gulab Rasool (PW 2) and Mool Chand (PW 3). The learned Magistrate on considering evidence of the prosecution held that the applicant was selling adulterated milk and an offence punishable under S.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was fully established against him. With this finding he convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above.