KALYANMAL AND ANOTHER Vs. NAGAR PALIKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, Kalyanmal and Motilal seek interference with the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1979 confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, in Criminal Trial No. 342 of 1974 finding the petitioner Kalyanmal guilty of selling adulterated cow milk prohibited under Sec. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months with Rs. 1000.00 fine and in the event of non-payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that on 20 6-1974 in the town of Agar, C. M. Sharma (P.W. 1) the Food Inspector in the Municipal Council Agar, in the presence of Chhaganlal (P.W. 2) bought from the petitioner Kalyanmal 660 ml. of cow milk so that it could be analysed by a Public Analyst, for Rs. 1.05. He obtained a receipt (Ex. P. 1) for it. He divided the bought milk in three equal parts putting each of them in three separate clean and dry bottles and putting into each of them 18 drops of formalin. Each of the bottles was then closed and scaled. One of them was given to the petitioners and one of the remaining two was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report contained in the document (Ex. P. 8) found that though the fat contents were 4.7 per cent, the solids of fat were merely 6.1 per cent indicating thereby that the sample had contained 26 per cent of added water. Kanbaiyalal also with the petitioners was prosecuted. The defence of Kanhaiyalal and Motilal was that they were not present at the time of selling of the milk. The defence of the petitioner, Kalyanmal was that he being a student aged about 19 years had sold the milk as he had received it from the Government diary who used to supply milk at his shop. The learned Magistrate find that the co-accused Kanhaiyalal had to do nothing with the selling of the sample of milk, acquitted him. But the finding that the petitioner Motilal was the owner of the shop and the petitioner Kalyanmal had actually sold the adulterated milk finding them guilty of the offence charged and sentenced them.

(3.) Both the convicted petitioners appealed to the Sessions Judge, Shajapur but unsuccessfully.