ASGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision arises out of a prosecution under the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution, Asgar accused was carrying two drums containing adulterated milk. He was stopped by R. D. Sharma, Food Inspector. He purchased samples of milk, which the accused was carrying. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst. It was reported that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated milk. The accused conceded that he was checked by the Inspector. But it was denied that any money was paid to the accused. The trial Court was satisfied that the accused was selling adulterated milk. He was, therefore, convicted under Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Aagar's appeal was dismissed by the Temporary Sessions Judge, Bnlandshahr. Asgar has, therefore, come to this Court in revision.

(2.) IT is common ground that B. D. Sharma, Food Inspector took a sample of milk from the accused. The main question for consideration is whether the milk, which the accused was carrying, was meant for sale. Three : witnesses were examined for the prosecution. P. W. 1 is B. D. Sharma, Food Inspector. He stated that the accused carried some 15 seers of milk. He denied the suggestion that the accused carried only four seers of milk.

(3.) P. W. 2 supported the Food Inspector in the examination-in-chief. But in cross examination P. W. 2 stated that the accused had five seers of milk in a Dibba. The accused was saying that the milk was not for sale. He was taking it to a relation of his. Abdul Rashid (P. W. 3) turned hostile. It will be noticed that two out of the three witnesses for the prosecution turned hostile.