ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11.10.1986 at about 8 A.M., Ashok Kumar petitioner, a milk vender, was allegedly intercepted by Government Food Inspector Kali Ram, PW.1 in the presence of Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, PW.2 and Rajinder Kumar, who himself was also a tea vendor, and was found in possession of about 60 Kgs. of cow's milk contained in two drums meant for sale. After disclosing his identity and serving notice Ex.PA on the prescribed form, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cow's milk for a sum of Rs. 1.80 paise vide receipt Ex.PB. The sample milk was divided into three equal parts and two drops of 40 per cent formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were stoppered tightly and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in a strong thick paper. One sealed bottle along with a memorandum in Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet. The other two sealed bottles of sample along with copies of memorandum in form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Jind. Ex.PD is the report of the Public Analyst, who declared the sample as adultered he milk solids not fat was 8 per cent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed in the Court by the Goverment Food Inspector and the petitioner was put to trial under Section 16(i)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) On the testimony of Kali Ram, PW. 1, the Government Food Inspector and Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, PW.2 and the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PD, the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, in appeal the sentences of imprisonment was reduced from nine months to six months whereas the sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The alleged independent witness, who joined the investigation of the case i.e. Rajinder Kumar appeared as DW.1 and stated that in fact the sample was not taken by the Food Inspector or the Medical Officer and rather only a peon conducted the sampling. Another sample bottle was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who submitted his report Ex.PF.