SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.1.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, by which he has upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the CJM, Kaithal, on 12.10.1998/13.10.1998.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the Government Food Inspector (hereinafter called as GFI) Sh. C.L. Sikri and Dr. N.K. Dhawan and one Sh. Yashpal had inspected the premises of the petitioner on 19.4.1991 at about 12.10 p.m. and found him in possession of 15 kgs of boiled milk which was available for public sale. After serving notice Ex. PF, the GFI had purchased 750 mls of boiled milk for Rs. 4/- and the milk had been divided into 3 equal parts and put into 3 dry and clean bottles. Thereafter, 20 drops of formalin were added as preservative in each bottle and the bottles were stoppered, labelled, wrapped and then sealed as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Karnal, for analysis and the remaining 2 were deposited with the local health authority, Kaithal. The Public Analyst in his report Ex. PD, had opined that the sample contained 3.6% milk fat as against 4%, milk solid not fat was found 7.6% as against 8% which deficiency led to the filing of a complaint before the CJM, Kaithal, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before the trial Court, after framing of the charge to which the petitioner had pleaded not guilty, the prosecution had examined 3 witnesses. When examined under Section 313, CrPC, the petitioner had denied all the allegations that appeared against him in the evidence. He had pleaded not guilty of the charge, but had not been examined any evidence in support of his defence. The trial Court, after hearing arguments, had convicted him and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) AT the time of preliminary hearing, notice was issued by me on the question of sentence alone and during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner without adverting to the merits of the case that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been facing trial since 1991 as also the fact that he was merely a tea-vendor, the petitioner, Subhash Chand should be granted probation as he has already undergone two months 12 days of his substantive sentence.