GANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against his conviction under section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000.00 which on appeal was modified and the sentence was reduced to six months R I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the Additional Sessions Judge Indore.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution were that on 24-1-1971 at 7-30 in the morning the petitioner was stopped on Tilakpath when he was going on a bicycle with a container containing about 1.5 to 2 litres of milk by one Shri A.K. Phanse who claimed to be the Food Inspector. A sample was taken from him which was found belowstandard so far as milk-fats are concerned. It is also alleged that the container had an indication that it contained cows milk. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 A.K. Phanse, and P.W. 2 Bhawanishankar who was one of the panchas of the proceedings of the Food Inspector. The learned Courts below accepting the story convicted the petitioner. Before the learned Sessions Court it appears that a question was raised that there is no evidence to prove that Shri Phanse was a food inspector as his initial appointment as sanitary inspector has also not been established. But the learned Judge felt that even if it is not established the prosecution could be justified on the basis of Shri Phanse being a private purchaser of milk from the petitioner : and therefore the learned Judge dismissed this contention.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that P.W. 1 Shri Phanse in his deposition has not produced anything to indicate that he was appointed sanitary inspector although his appointment was challenged and he was cross-examined on that matter. Even subsequently the prosecution did not produce any material evidence to prove that Shri Phanse was at any time appointed sanitary inspector as to be a Food Inspector; under the notification his appointment as sanitary inspector must be established. Learned counsel also contended that in absence of proof of Shri Phanses being sanitary inspector, in this case the question of private sale will not arise as the evidence led by the prosecution has not established that there was any sale of milk by the petitioner to Shri Phanse as the receipt which is said to be executed (P/1) has not been proved to have the signatures of the petitioner. P.W. 1 Phanse has not stated that it bears the signature of the petitioner and that he signed before him after receiving the money. On the contrary, in cross-examination he has avoided it by saying that it was prepared by some Daroga whom he was not in a position to name. The same has not been proved to have been signed by the petitioner by the other witness Bhawanishankar. Learned counsel contended that in absence of the evidence of private sale even the prosecution could not succeed as this evidence is net enough to establish that Shri Phanse as private person purchased milk from the petitioner.