SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the dismissal of revisionist's appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts are that sample of 'Zeera' was taken from the revisionist and on analysis it was found that it contained extraneous matter 1.2 % in excess of the prescribed standard. So the Trial Court convicted the revisionist and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months' further rigorous imprisonment. In appeal the findings of the learned Trial Court were maintained and sentence was reduced to 6 month's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three month's further R. I.

(2.) NOW in revision it is being argued that the sample of 'Zeera' that was taken was not homogenous. In this respect no specific provision in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been pointed out In case of milk and milk preparations, it is distinctly possible that the fat settles on the top and in order to find out whether the milk has prescribed content, the sample must be homogeneous and representative so that the analysis can furnish reliable proof of nature and content of the article of food under analysis. But there is no such thing in case of article like 'Zeera' which was sold by the revisionist himself and he would not sell it to any other person after every time mixing up the contents of the container. So irregularity appears to have been committed and the sample of 'Zeera' taken by the revisionist himself from the container and sold by him must be taken to be representative. In the case of Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda v. Madan Lal Ram Lal, 1983 AWC 126=1983 ACrR 76 it was said that there has to be a finding that churning of milk done by hand was not adequate. In the case before me, there is no such finding that sample of 'Zeera' was not homogeneous. So this ground appears to have no force.

(3.) LASTLY it was argued that the Food Inspector did not himself send the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis as required by section 11 (1) (c). On this there is finding of the Court below that it was sent through special messenger by the Food Inspector. The messenger was of the C.M.O. office, but it will not mean that the sample was not sent to Public Analyst by the Food Inspector.