LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-126

AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 05, 2010
AJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 19/20.11.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa, convicting and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act')

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 29.11.1983 Government Food Inspector Shankar Dass Gupta along with Dr. R.C. Mittal intercepted the accused at bus stand Thana, Tehsil Pehowa. After serving notice upon the accused, he purchased 660 mls of cow's milk on payment of Rs. 1.90 in order to get it analyzed. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and 18 drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. The samples were duly sealed. One sealed bottle along with form VII with specimen impression was sent separately to the public analyist, Haryana through registered parcel, whereas, the remaining two samples along with copies of memo on form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Pehowa on 29.11.1983. As per report of the Public Analyst, Haryana Chandigarh, the sample was found to be adulterated as the milk fat was found to be 4.3% against the prescribed 4.5% and milk solids not fat were found to be 7.9% against the prescribed 8.5%. Accordingly, a complaint was instituted in the court and the accused was summoned. On the application moved by the accused, the second sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad for analysis which was lost in transit and the third sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore was reported to had been decomposed.

(3.) After recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.