RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been rendered assailing conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, dated 21.11.1997, vide which he was convicted for offence under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and against judgment dated 22.1.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and sentence was dismissed except with modification on the point of sentence, i.e., substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was reduced to six months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.1990, PW1 C.L. Sikri, complainant, Food Inspector alongwith PW2 Dr. V.S. Dhaka, District Health Officer and in the presence of one witness of the public Shri Bhim Sain intercepted the present revision-petitioner near Mukeshwar Mandir, Kaithal, while he was carrying 35 litres of cow's milk for public sale in two canes 750 ml of cow's milk was purchased for sample on payment of Rs. 3.50/- and the sample was drawn in consonance with the provisions and the rules of the Act. The sample was sent to public analyst, who vide report Ex. PE found that the same contain milk fat 3.6% and milk solids not fat was 7.4% and, hence, milk fat was 10% deficient and milk solids fat was 13% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.