VIDYA NAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of four months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300 awarded to him for the offence. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the accused was found carrying milk in a container exhibiting the same for sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 660 millilitres of milk on payment of price and divided the same into samples as required by law. At the time of the purchase the accused had told the Food Inspector that it was a mixture of cow milk and goat milk in equal proportions. The sample of milk was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst found the milk deficient in non-fatty solids contents by about 25%. Fat contents were 3. 9% and non-fatty solids were 6%. The Public Analyst had applied the standard derived from the statutory standards for cow milk and goat milk mixed in the proportion specified by the Food Inspector i. e. 1:1,

(2.) THE prosecution examined the Food Inspector and the Octroi Superintendent who had witnessed the sale by the accused to the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of sample, They supported the prosecution case. The plea of the accused in his defence was that he was carrying this milk for a relation and the milk was not meant for sale. The accused produced a witness in support of his defence version who also stated that he had asked the accused to bring the milk for him as he needed the same in connection with the betrothal ceremony of his daughter.

(3.) THE trial court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accused had sold milk to the Food Inspector and the sample was proved to be adulterated. The Court accordingly convicted the accused. However, without assigning any adequate or special reason the learned Magistrate awarded a sentence below the minimum prescribed by law. The accused went up in appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate court also did not give any reason for justifying the sentence awarded by the trial court which was below the minimum prescribed by law. The accused has now come up in revision to this Court.