RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Sri Ramesh Sharma appeared for the applicant. On his death, notice was sent to the applicant for engaging another counsel. According to the office report, notice has been served on the applicant, but he has not engaged anybody as counsel. The applicant is also not present in person.

(2.) Two points arise for consideration in this case. One of them was as to the standard which was to be applied in the instant case for the purposes of finding whether the milk obtained from the applicant on 7.9.1971 was below the standard prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the case of the applicant, the sample obtained from him was the mixed milk of cow and buffalo. On this basis, it was urged that since no standard had been prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - which could be applied in the case of admixture of cow and buffalo milk, therefore, the applicant could not be convicted under sections 7/16 of the aforesaid Act. The stand of the applicant does not appear to be correct in as much as in a Full Bench decision of of this Court in Prem Das Vs. State, AIR 1961 All. 590, it was held that where there was a sale of admixture of buffalo and cow milk and it was not known in what proportion the mixture was made, the standard Laid down for the buffalo milk would be applicable for the purposes of finding out the standard prescribed by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The second ground on which the conviction was challenged was that although the sample was obtained on 7.9.1971, but the complaint was not filed before 25.1.1972. On this basis, it was urged that as the sample obtained from the applicant was destroyed and could not be further sent for examination by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, therefore, the applicant having been deprived of a valuable right of getting it examined under Sec. 13(2) of the Act, his conviction was bad in law. The second ground also has no substance. The applicant admittedly, did not make any application under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, it is not open to him to complain that as the complaint was filed after about four months, he was deprived of the right conferred by Sub-section (2) of Sec. 13 of the aforesaid Act. Had the applicant made an application for examination of the sample by the Director, Central Food Laboratory and thereafter the Director would have found that the milk could not be tested by him because of the same having been deteriorated due to lapse of time, in that event the position would have been different.