JAGDEO Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions have been filed by Jagdeo challenging his conviction under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1973 is in respect of the sample which was obtained by the Food Inspector from him on 3rd March, 1970. The milk supplied by the applicant was thereafter sent to the Public Analyst who found that the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 20 per cent and was also deficient in non-fatty solids by about 4 per cent. The applicant was thereafter prosecuted by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. To prove the charge against the applicant a number of witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The accused pleaded not guilty on the ground that he was mere an employee of the Halwai for whom he was carrying the milk and since he was not himself the seller he could not be convicted for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) After examining the evidence on the record the Magistrate found that the milk was deficient and further disbelieved the defence theory that the applicant was an employee of a Halwai. He came to the conclusion that the applicant himself was a milkman and that the milk that was being carried by him on that date was meant for sale to public. On this finding the applicant was convicted by the Magistrate and was sentenced to four months R.I. as well as to a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In appeal the conviction and sentence of the applicant were maintained. Aggrieved by these judgemnts the present revision No. 394 of 1973 has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant but I am unable to find any error of law in the judgment requiring interference under Sec. 435 and 439 Cr. P.C. The finding that the milk found from his possession on 3rd March, 1970 was deficient and was not according to the standard Laid down by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not, in fact, seriously challenged either before the courts below or before me. The only point urged was about the fact as to whether the applicant was an employee and was carrying the milk in that capacity. The two courts below did not accept the defence. The finding recorded by them is one of fact and I see no reason to differ with the same. Accordingly the revision has no merits and is liable to fail.