GOVIND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While revision petitioner was carrying two cans of milk (mixture of cow milk, buffalo milk and goat milk) for sale on 9-6-1988. Food Inspector accosted him and after observing the statutory formalities, purchased the requisite quantity of milk from him for analysis and dealt with the sample as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder and sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst received the same on 10-6-88, found the sample properly sealed and fastened and found the seal intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst, and the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. He found 2.6% of fat and 3.99% of solids non-fat in, the sample. Starch was present. Formalin was present. The sample was adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(1-A)(a)(m) of the Act. The Public Analyst sent his report dated 18-7-1988 to the Local Authority who duly informed PW-1 who filed the complaint on 4-3-1989.

(2.) The Local Authority sent a copy of the report with due intimation to the accused on 25-3-1989. Summons was served on him and he appeared in due course and pleaded not guilty. The revision petitioner did not apply to the Court u/S. 13(2-A) of the Act to send another part of the sample to the Director. Central Food Laboratory for analysis. On the basis of evidence adduced, the trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him u/S. 16, read with Section 9 of the Act. The Sessions Judge in appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(3.) One of us, (Bhat C. J.) who heard the case, referred it to a Division Bench in view of the importance of the question urged on behalf of the revision petitioner.