GEETAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Etawah, vide his order dated 10th April, 1978. Hence this revision.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, the Food Inspector found the applicant selling milk at about 11-05 a.m. on 30th Dec., 75 at the Station Bazariya Etawah. He purchased 660 Mili Litres of milk on payment of 0.99 paise, divided the sample into three portions, kept it in three separate dry bottles and sealed them. He obtained a receipt Ex Ka. 2 from the accused after giving him form No. 6 (Ex. Ka.) in the presence of witnesses Memo of the sample was prepared which is Ex. Ka 6. Since the kind of milk was not mentioned either on the container nor was it given by the accused-applicant, it was treated as buffalo milk by the Public Analyst. His report indicated that the sample sent to him had 5 per cent fat and 7.1 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was found on analysis to be adulterated. The sanction was obtained and the applicant was prosecuted and sentenced as above.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has contended that there has been nor we compliance of Sections 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as independent witnesses were not called to witnesses the taking of the sample. It is evident from the receipt (Ex. Ka 2) and also from the memo (Ex. Ka 6) that one Vinoke Kumar (P.W. 2) was called by the Food Inspector. He has been examined as a witness. There is, thus, no merit in this contention.