BRIJBHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA. This revision arises out of an order of conviction under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') dated 26-9-1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1984, by the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, confirming the aforesaid conviction by the Munsif Magistrate Vlth, Farrukhabad. The applicant was sen tenced to 6 months RI and also a fine of Rs. 1,000 was imposed upon him. In default of payment of fine, another sentence of 3 months RI was imposed upon him.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that a sample of milk was taken by PW 1 Mewa Ram Sharma, Chief Food Inspec tor, from the applicant, Brijbhan. Accord ing to the information conveyed by the applicant that it was she-buffalo milk. THE milk was found to be adulterated. After analysis it was found that only 15% fat contains in it.

(3.) IN my opinion these are not strong enough reasons to discard the evidence of this defence witness. The evidence of this witness appears to me reliable. The ap plicant was only carrying this milk for being used in the marriage of the daughter of DW1. As such, the milk from which the sample was taken, was not meant for sale. The applicant according to the defence witness was not engaged in the business of sale of milk. He is engaged in grocery busi ness. Thus, this conviction in view of the above discussion and facts and circumstan ces cannot be sustained.