DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision the accused challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 11-7-81 at about 7.45 a.m. applicant Devraj was carrying milk on a cycle contained in 2 cans, when Food Inspector Phiroz Khan (P.W. 1) stopped him near the Rest House at Khandwa. The Food Inspector purchased sample of milk from him measuring 660 ml. The sample was put into 3 glass bottles after adding prescribed quantity of formalin in each. The bottles were duly packed and sealed. One of the bottle was sent by the Food Inspector to Public Analyst, Bhopal for analysis. The Public Analyst vide his report, Ex. P-10, reported that the sample milk contained Fat 2.5% and SHP 5%. Milk was said to be buffalo milk. It was below standard and hence was adulterated. Both the Courts below accepted the prosecution story. The applicant was convicted under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the two Courts below. The sentence awarded by the trial Court was R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R. I. for 6 months. The appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 6 months and while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1000/- reduced the sentence in default to R. I. for 3 months.

(3.) The first point urged by learned counsel for the applicant was that the Food Inspector after sending first part of the sample for analysis had, for unexplained reason, also sent second part for analysis. In such circumstances there was contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2-E) of Section 13 of the Act, under which second part of sample could have been sent only by the Local (Health) Authority. The report of Public Analyst (Ex. P-10), it was urged, related to the part subsequently sent while the previous report of Public Analyst relating to the first part was suppressed by the prosecution. As such, the conviction of the applicant based on the report of Public Analyst (Ex. P-10) was bad.