DILIP DATTATRAYA PUKALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unusual phenomena was noticed when the sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector, purporting to be skimmed milk and the report of the Public Analyst as well as the certificate of the Director showed that it contained fat contents more than as required under the rules. Therefore, this is a case where more fat contents are found in the milk though it is true that for the purpose of skimmed milk the percentage should have been less. According to the prosecution, on 5th December, 1974 at about 7-30 a.m. the complainant Food Inspector Shri Jangude along with Food Inspector Tiwari visited the premises of the present petitioner, who was original accused No. 1, who runs milk Dairy in partnership with his brother, who is original accused No. 2 while the firm was made originally accused No.

(2.) Total denial was the defence of the accused. The said defence, however, was partial inasmuch as the visit of the Food Inspector was not specifically denied. However, it was suggested through the cross-examination that what was really intended to be purchased was not the skimmed milk and secondly the processing of separating the fat from the milk was not done at that time because the fat separating machine was out of order.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and rejected the defence of the accused, and held that the accused sold adulterated milk and thus both the accused as well as the firm were convicted for the said offence imposing a sentence of R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further R.I. for three months in so far as present petitioner is concerned while original accused No. 2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court with the fine of Rs. 1000/- while the firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.