KALLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have carefully perused the impugned orders and also the record of the case. According to the prosecution the applicant was carrying a Can of milk on his bicycle on Rampur Suar Road at about 9-30 a.m. on 22nd July, 1976, when he was checked by the Food Inspector. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector had purchased 660 ml. of milk and divided the same in 3 equal parts. He wrapped and sealed them in accordance with law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat contents by 7 per cent and in nonfatty solids by 39 per cent. After obtaining sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted, as above. Both the courts below have on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case held the guilt of the accused established. It was argued before the court below and has also been taken in the grounds of revision that the sample in question was not wrapped and sealed in the manner provided under the Rules. This question has been considered by the Sessions Judge in detail. He has mentioned that it appears that the sample phial was brought before the court and examined by it. The observations of the court below indicate that the phial was first covered with the lable, thereafter the lable was covered by thick paper. The paper bore thumb-impression of the accused applicant. On it, were also written details connected with the case. The thick paper was secured by means of strong thread and by wax. The lable mentioned that 18 drops of formaline had been mixed with the sample. On a consideration of the facts, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the formalities of law had been complied with. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by them.

(3.) It was also argued before the court below that there was no sale of milk by the accused applicant to the Food Inspector. A ground to that effect has also been taken in this revision. It was argued that the accused was not carrying the milk for sale but was taking the same on his bicycle to his employer Sri Shakir, who happened to be a member of the Municipal Board Rampur. It appears that in the statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. stand taken by the accused was different. He totally denied that the Food Inspector had taken any sample from him at the relevant time and date. D.W. Eqbal Hussain has contradicted the applicant. He admits that the Food Inspector had taken the sample from the accused-applicant, though in a forcible manner. Sri Shakir has not been produced in evidence. All these facts and circumstances have led the court below to refute the defence suggestion that the milk was not for sale and was being taken for Sri Shakir. I do not find any illegality or preversity in these findings.