KUNWARJI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the applicant-accused against the judgment dated 29.7.1985 passed by the learned Second Addl. Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cri. Appeal No. 240/83 whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the conviction under sections 16(1) (a)(i) and 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentences of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.00(in default rigorous imprisonment for two months) and three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00i.in default rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively, as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khachrod by his Judgment dated 26.10.1983 passed in Cri. Case No. 460/81.

(2.) In the instant case, the sample of cow-milk purchased from the applicant was found to have fat content and solids not fat content as 6% and 7.5% respectively, whereas the prescribed standards are 3.5% and 8.5% respectively and that the applicant had stocked milk for sale without obtaining a licence as required by rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Accordingly, the applicant-accused was found guilty of the offences under sections 16(1) (a) (i) and 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for which he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant accused has raised two contentions. The first contention is that the applicant-accused cannot be convicted for both the offences punishable under the two clauses of section 16 as aforesaid since if the milk was found to be adulterated then, no licence for selling adulterated milk was necessary. The second contention of the learned counsel is that as the milk in question was found by the Public-Analyst to contain high percentage of fat namely 6% instead of 3.5% which is the minimum standard prescribed for cow-milk, and therefore, it is highly doubtful that the milk was diluted by adding diluent like water. In the circumstances, therefore, it has been submitted that it would not safe to accept the analysis report of the Public Analyst about adulteration, in this case even though the applicant has not availed of the opportunity of challenging the Public Analyst's report and getting the sample of milk analysed by the Central Food Laboratory under section 13(2) of the Act.