MOHD BAITULLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity "Act, 1954") and sentenced for six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for two months, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol vide judgment dated 16.7.1998 in Criminal Case No. 893/1996. In Criminal Appeal No. 119/1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide judgment dated 12.2.2001 dismissed the appeal of the applicant. Being aggrieved with the judgments of both the Courts below, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicant.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.11.1995 at bypass road Shahdol, Food Inspector J.P.Verma (PW-2) was inspecting the milk carried by some of the milk vendors. The applicant Mohd. Baitulla was found transporting three cans of milk. On enquiry the applicant informed that it was a mixed milk of cow and buffalo. A notice Ex.P-7 was given to the applicant in form No. 6 and 750 ml. milk was purchased. Sample was made homogeneous and thereafter 750 ml. milk was distributed in three dried plastic bottles. 20 drops of formalin were added to each part of the sample and was sealed properly. Thereafter slip issued by the Local Heath Authority was pasted on the samples and samples were sealed in a proper manner. Food Inspector Shri Verma had prepared a document Ex.P-9, Panchanama of the entire proceedings. Ultimately, the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and it was found in the report of the Public Analyst that fat contents in the sample were found to be 3.5% whereas solid not fat contents were found to be 8%, therefore the Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. After getting a due sanction from the Local Health Authority, a complaint was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The applicant-accused abjured his guilt before the trial Court. He did not take any specific plea in the matter, but he has stated that he was not dealing in milk and no sample was taken from him. However, no defence evidence has been adduced.