LAWS(MPH)-2013-4-162

NARMADA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On April 09, 2013
NARMADA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.F. Act") vide judgment dated 24.4.1996 passed by the JMFC, Harda (Shri B.R. Patil) in Criminal Case No. 165 of 1984 and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/ -. In Criminal Appeal No. 56/1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda vide judgment dated 29.4.1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case in short is that on 3.2.1994 at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning the Food Inspector C.P. Tiwari (PW 1) went to bus stand Timarni and he found that the applicant Narmada Prasad was bringing a big can on his bicycle, having 8 ltrs. of buffalo milk. He told that the milk was to be sold in a hotel of one Ramashray. The Food Inspector took a sample of 660 mlts. milk in a dry utensil. Price of the milk was paid. Thereafter, sample was divided into three parts and kept in three dry, odorless and clean glass bottles. 18 drops of formalin was dropped in each of the bottle and thereafter, the bottles were closed by cork and duly sealed. A paper 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 parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide report Ex. P/13 found that milk fat percentage was less and therefore, sample was adulterated. The prosecution's sanction was obtained from Deputy Director, Food and Drug Administration, Hoshangabad and a complaint was filed before the concerned Magistrate. A notice under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act was given to the applicant. Postal receipt of that notice was shown to be Ex. P/ 18 whereas A/D slip was submitted as Annexure P/17.

(2.) THE applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was taking the milk to his relative Bhaskar Kahar, he was not selling the milk. In defence Ramadhar (DW 1) was examined.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.