SHIV DAYAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted Under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated milk and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts are that on 12-9-1968, Food Inspector Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 1) stopped the applicant while he was carrying milk on his cycle for sale. After giving notice and paying the price, the Inspector purchased 660 ml of milk and divided the milk so purchased into three parts, which were kept and duly sealed in 3 bottles. One sample was given to the applicant, another was sent to Public Analyst and the third was kept by him for production in the Court. The Inspector prepared necessary documents on the spot in the presence of panchas showing that all formalities were performed properly. The Analyst certified the sample to be adulterated with 18 per cent of added water. The conviction has been based on the testimony of Food Inspector duly corroborated by panch Devi Prasad (P. W. 2) and the documents Exs. P. l to P. 5. The defence was of denial that the applicant was carrying any adulterated milk but it was contended that he was merely a carrier of the milk and was not dealing in milk. The learned Sessions Judge Was of the view that the applicant could not make any grievance about the delay in filing the complaint against him as he did not apply Under Section 13 (2) of the Act for sending a sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, thereby it would have been known whether the sample was still fit for analysis or not. Probation of Offenders Act was not invoked as the applicant in his statement Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gave his age to be 28 years.

(3.) THE conviction and sentence are mainly challenged firstly on the ground that in View of inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, the applicant has been seriously prejudiced in his defence and secondly, in any case, the Courts below should have released the applicant Under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as he was only 16 years on the date of the offence.