POSAKI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly dated 23.5.73 upholding the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 6/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 3.12.1971 at about 8.30 A.M. Food Inspector Vijay Pal Singh took a sample of 660 ml. of milk after payment of its price to the applicant. On analysis milk was found to contain 5.2 per cent fat 7.1 per non-fatty solids. The latter quantity was thus deficient by about 16 per cent from the statutory standard prescribed for cow milk.

(2.) The applicant did not deny that the Food Inspector took sample from him but claimed that the milk was not meant for sale. The prosecution examined Vijay Pal Singh, Food Inspector, Mustaq Ahmad and Om Prakesh peon of the Food Inspector. The applicant also examined two witnesses in defence. The trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In appeal his conviction was maintained but the sentence of line was reduced from Rs. 1000.00 to Rs. 500.00. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant but I am unable to find any error of law in the judgment of the two courts below. It was disputed before me that the milk was not meant for sale and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant on the basis of the analysis of the milk found from the possession of the applicant, is illegal. The word sale had been defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and it has very wide meaning. This would include even taking of the milk by the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis. Hence it is not necessary to enter into other controversy pertaining to this aspect of the matter.