HORILAL THETHWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Revision, the applicant has challenged his conviction under section 16(1)(e)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500.00 by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 51/82 affirming the judgment and order dated 4.3.1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 4911/1979.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the applicant is a milk vendor. On 28,5.1977, at about 9.00 a.m. when the applicant was bringing milk for sale within the area of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, the Food Inspector K.R. Baghal (P.W. 1) checked him and purchased 660 ml. milk from him for purposes of analysis. The Food Inspector divided the said milk into three equal parts and filled each part in the three clean bottles and sabled them in accordance with law. One sample was delivered to the applicant. A sample of the said milk was sent to the public analyst who on analysing the milk sample found it adulterated and below standard. Ex. P-7 is the report of the public analyst Thereafter, by memo dated 21.5 1979, Ex. P-9, the Local Health Authority forwarded a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the applicant informing him that if it is so desired, he may make an application to the Court within the period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The said memo was served upon the applicant on 25.5.1979. After obtaining the sanction of the Local Health Authority, prosecution against the applicant was launched on 8.6.1979.

(3.) On evaluation of the evidence on record, learned trial Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence charged with and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. The said conviction and sentence have been maintained by the lower Appellate Court against which this revision has been directed.