ASHARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1)(a) read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 22.7.1984, Food Inspector Shri R.P. Soni (PW 3) found the applicant selling milk and he puchased the sample of the mixed milk of cow and she -buffalo. After completing the necessary formalities and procedure as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the sample of the milk was sent to the Chemical Analyst which was found to be adulterated and thus after having served the notice to the applicant, he was prosecuted.

(2.) THE learned trial Court framed charge under section 7(1)(a) read with section 16(l)(a) (i) of the Act and Rule 50 of the Rules. The applicant abjured the guilt.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur who partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the applicant from the offence punishable under Rule 50 of the Rules, however, his conviction under section 16(l)(a) of the Act was maintained. Thus, the applicant had a cause to prefer the revision before this Court. In this revision petition, Mr. L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is non -compliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 17(a) inasmuch as the milk was not sent immediately to Public Analyst as indicated in clause (a) of Rule 17 and before obtaining the sample, the milk was not stirred so as to make it homogeneous. According to the learned counsel, the learned Courts below had not taken into consideration this legal aspect of the matter and as such the revision deserves to be allowed.