(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Jai Bhagwan (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 13.11.1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dated 17.5.1988. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months (and) a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In default, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to six months with no inference in the quantum of fine.
(2.) THE facts of the present case are that Shri R.C. Arora, Govt. Food Inspector had filed a complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was asserted that on 27.8.1983 he accompanied by Dr. S.P. Singhal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ganaur, intercepted the petitioner at 8.30 a.m. The petitioner was having a durm containing 25 litres of cow milk for public sale. Notice was served in form VI. 600 Mls. of cow milk was purchased from the petitioner by the Food Inspector on payment of Rs. 2/-. The milk was divided into three equal parts and preservative was added. One part of the sample is sealed condition was sent to the public analyst alongwith memo in form VII through a railway parcel. The remaining two parts of the sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst indicated that the milk solids not fat were deficient to the extent of 18%. From these broad facts, the complaint was filed.
(3.) IN the present case in hand, the main controversy is as to whether there is a compliance of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under :-