STATE Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal against the appellate order of Shri E. F. Barlow, Sessions judge, Bhatinda, dated 10th February, 1960, by which he acquitted the respondent, Sadhu Singh, a milk-seller, of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) ON the morning of 6th February, 1959, Y. R. Malhotra Food Inspector, while on duty within the municipal limits of Bhatinda City, took a sample of buffalo milk that the respondent, Sadhu Singh, was offering for sale. The sample was divided into three parts, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst in a duly sealed bottle. The Analyst reported (vide Exhibit P. E.) that the sample in question was adulterated with skimmed milk and water, as it was deficient of 46 per cent of the minimum amount of milk fat and 19 per cent of the milk solids. Sadhu Singh was, accordingly, prosecuted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act; 1954, and it was alleged that he had once been previously convicted for a similar offence on 6th of October, 1958, when he was sentenced, by a Magistrate First Class of Bhatinda, to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Sadhu Singh pleaded not guilty. While admitting that 3/4th Seer of buffalo milk was taken from him by the Food inspector, Y. R. Malhotra, on the morning of 6th February 1959, he complained that the sample was taken in a garvi, no payment was made to him, and that one of the triplicate samples was never given to him by the Food Inspector. In the course of the trial it was urged that the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not complied with by the Food inspector, as the sample was not taken in presence of two respectable persons of the locality, and in accordance with the rule laid down in In re Raju Konar, AIR 1959 Mad 118, the conviction was bad. The learned Magistrate, relying upon the evidence of the Food Inspector, Y. R. Malhotra, P. W. 1, and that of Raunaq Ram p. W. 2, and Hans Raj, P. W. 3, whose signatures appeared on the memo, Exhibit P. C. , held that there had been no violation of the provisions of Sub-section (7) of section 10, read with Sub-section 1 (a) of that Section of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, as it was proved that the sample had been taken by the Food inspector in presence of Raunaq Ram and Hans Raj. Accordingly, he rejected the defence contention and convicted Sadhu Singh under section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of that Section and the admission of Sadhu Singh that he had been previously convicted, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 2000/-, the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act for a previous offender. In default of payment of fine, sadhu Singh was ordered to undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) SADHU Singh appealed to the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who, disagreeing with the trial Court, held that the memo Exhibit P. C. upon which the learned magistrate had relied, was the one that was prepared under Section 11 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was, consequently, no evidence of the fact that the provisions of Section 10 (1) (a) read with Section 10 (7) had been complied with. He was of the opinion that the memo, Exhibit P. D. , was the one that was prepared at the time the sample taken, and since it did not bear the signatures of two witnesses who were alleged to have been present at the time the sample was taken, Sub-section (7) of Section 10 had not been complied with. Holding that the provisions of Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 were mandatory and there had been flagrant violation of the same, the learned Sessions Judge accepted Sadhu Singh's appeal and, setting aside his conviction and sentence, acquitted him. It is against this order that the State had come up in appeal.