DEEPCHAND Vs. S.R. MITTAL, FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts giving rise to this application are that the applicant had taken a contract to supply milk to the Civil Hospital, Jhabua, in the year 1971-72. He had engaged one Dhanna, who was accused 1 No.2, before the trial Court and who has been released under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, by the learned Lower appellate Court, to lake the milk to the hospital as his servant.

(2.) On 24-2-1972 when the applicant was out of station and had come to Indore, Dhanna, applicant's servant, took 2 kilos of milk from the applicant's place. As this quantity fell short of the agreed quantity by one kilo, the said servant Dhanna, while on the way, purchased one kilo of milk from one Bheel, added the same to the quantity of milk taken from the applicant's place and reached the hospital. From this milk, sample was purchased b the Food Inspector in the requisite quantity and, after completing all the formalities in connection with the sample as required by the said Act and the rules framed thereunder, one of the bottles of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, on analysis, as per report Ex. P/9, found that the milk fat was 3.6 per cent and milk solid non fat 4.82 per cent. Thus, the sample was found to be below the prescribed standard and adulterated. Hence the applicant and his servant were prosecuted tried and convicted against which an appeal, has been maintained. Hence this revision by the applicant.

(3.) The applicant did not exercise his right under section 13 of the said Act to get his analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and consequently, there appears no reason to doubt the conclusion arrived at by the public analyst, after analysing the sample of milk sent to him.