DARYAV SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.F. Act") vide judgment dated 17-1-1998 passed by the JMFC, Raisen in Criminal Case No. 64 of 1989 and sentenced for six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In Criminal Appeal No. 12/1989, the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen vide judgment dated 29-5-1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision. Prosecution's case in short is that on 30-8-1988 the Food Inspector, R.K. Singh (P.W. 1) was inspecting the various milk hawkers on the road from Raisen towards Sagar. In front of the College at Raisen, he found that the applicant was bring 8 ltrs. of milk in a can by the bicycle. The Food Inspector proposed to take a sample of the milk and thereafter, he purchased 750 mlts. of milk in a clean, odourless and dry pot, after making the milk homogeneous. Payment of the milk was done. Purchased milk was divided into three parts in three dry clean and odourless glass bottles. 20 drops of formalin were added in each of the bottle and thereafter, the bottles were closed by cork and duly sealed with thick paper and thereafter, slip issued by the Local Health Authority was also affixed on each of the bottles. Various memos were prepared. One part of sample was sent to the public analyst whereas remaining two parts were deposited in the office of the Local Health Authority. The public analyst, vide its report (Exh. P-16) found that the percentage of fat was 3.1% and percentage of solid non-fat was 5.33% and therefore, the milk of cow and buffalo sold by the applicant was found adulterated. The Deputy Director, Food and Drug Administration, Raisen vide order (Exh. P-17), directed the Food Inspector to file a complaint and thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Trial Court. A notice (Exh. P-19) under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act was given to the applicant. An acknowledgment slip (Exh. P-20) was received. The applicant did not apply for analysis of the sample from the Central Food Laboratory.

(2.) The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter. However, Somath Singh (D.W. 1) was examined in support of the defence.

(3.) After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.