KHERAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the complaint of the Food Inspector S.N. Sharma (P.W. 1) that on the 4th March, 1974, he had purchased about 600 grams of buffalow milk as a sample from the milk container of the accuse who had brought the milk for sale, according to the provisions contained the Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') made found to be adulterated as per the report of the Public Analyst dated 19-2-1974 to whom one part of the sample was sent for analysis in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the accused vas prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda wherefrom he was convicted and sentenced as already referred to here in above. On appeal by the accused, applicant, being Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1975, in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, the conviction and sentence of the accused was confirmed vide the impugned judgment dated 26th July, 1975.

(2.) It is true that it has appeared in the evidence of the Food Inspector, Satya Narayan Sharma (P.W. 1) that the Public Analyst had refused to receive the registered parcel of the container of the sample but he has emphatically denied the suggestion of the defence that the Public Analyst bad refused to receive the sample as it was not properly packed. The Food Inspector Satyanarayan Sharma (P.W. 1) had also stated in his statement that he had sent that very parcel through messenger to the Public Analyst, there is nothing brought out either in the statement of the Public Analyst or there is any other evidence on record to suggest that the sample was tempered with. This first contention had attracted the attention of the Court below also and the Court below has rejected the contention on consideration of the evidence on record. In this view of the matter there is no ground for interfering on this question of fact, particularly when it does not suffer from any perversity.

(3.) In Ex. P. 8, it is specifically mentioned that the packet of sample has been already sent by registered post parcel and the memorandum, specimen impression of the seal were being sent to him separately according to the Rules. In addition to this, when the Food Inspector, Satyanarayan Sharma (P.W. 1) has stated to have sent what is required to be sent under rule 17 and 18 of the rules, in view of section 114 of Evidence Act (1 of 1872) it can be presumed that it was regularly done.