(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo 3 months' R. I, His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that Shiv Prasad Panth, Food Inspector visited Lakhanuti Milk Collection Centre of Foremost Dairy at about 9. 40 A. M. on 9th October, 1974. The milk vendors bring milk to the Centre and sell it to the Foremost Dairy. Applicant Rakam Singh had also brought milk for sale to the Foremost Dairy. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased a sample of buffalo milk after payment of price. He divided it equally into three bottles in accordance with law. One of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 17 per cent and in non-fatty solids by 8 per cent. The sample was judged from the statutory standard of Buffalo milk. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.
(3.) BOTH the courts below have held the prosecution allegations proved on a consideration of the evidence on the record. The main argument which has been addressed by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that even according to the prosecution allegations, the applicant had brought milk for the Dairy. He was not selling milk. The Dairy would receive his milk, test and then according to its fixed standard make payment of price. It is, therefore, contended that the milk, was not meant for sale. The argument is further stretched to the extent that the milk belonged to the Foremost Dairy and the applicant was merely carrying it for delivery to the Dairy. As a matter of fact, the sample of the milk from the applicant was itself taken at the Dairy. The whole argument, therefore, was that the milk was not meant for sale,