LAWS(ALL)-1976-12-45

DINA NATH Vs. STATE

Decided On December 08, 1976
DINA NATH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant by means of the present revision challenges his conviction under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences imposed thereunder.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution on June 17, 1969, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk on the crossing of the Kanpur-Stanly Road. On being asked the Food Inspector was informed by the appellant that he was the salesman of Katra Cooperative Dairy, Allahabad. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the applicant and thereafter obtained 660 ml. of milk for a sum of Rs. 1.05 np. He divided the same into three phials and added requisite quantity of formeline and sent one of the phials to the Public Analyst. As on the sample sent to the Public Analyst it was not noted that the milk sent was that either of cow or that of buffalo' the public Analyst applied the standard applicable for buffalo milk and found that the milk sent to him contained 5.1 per cent fat and 8.9 per cent non-fatty solids. The applicant was thereafter charge-sheeted for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that the milk purchased by the Food Inspector from him was not buffalo's milk but was cow's milk and therefore, the applicant could not be held guilty on the basis of the report submitted by the Public Analyst. It was also urged that the milk was, in fact, being taken by him to Murari Sweet House and that the Same was not meant for sale. Along with the applicant the Secretary of the Cooperative Dairy was also prosecuted. The Magistrate convicted the applicant as well as the Secretary under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and awarded six months Rigorous Imprisonment to each one of them but in appeal the conviction and sentence of Bhagwati Prasad, the Secretary of the Society was set aside and that of the applicant was maintained. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the applicant has come to this Court by means of the present revision.