DAMMON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. A sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 16th Aug., 78 at 10 a.m. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The applicant was carrying 12 Kgs. of mixed milk of cow and buffalo on his cycle. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 19 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has argued that the accused was taking this milk for offering Pooja at the temple of Rangeshwar Mahadeo. The evidence produced in the defence has been rejected by the courts below. The evidence disclosed that prior to the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector the accused had sold two Kgs. of milk to the Tea-stall which is situate in the Rangeshwar Mahadeo Temple. As such there was ample ground for the courts below to reject the defence case.