MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAN Singh was prosecuted for offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Shri S.P. Singh. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and was sentenced to undergo one year's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. This conviction was challenged by the petitioner in the Court of Shri P.C. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra who vide his judgment dated 4-5-1990 dismissed appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Not satisfied with these judgments, the petitioner has come up in this revision.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 29-7-1991, the petitioner was found carrying 40 kgs of cow's milk with him and he was intercepted by Hukam Singh, Government Food Inspector who was accompanied by Dr. J.O. Popli. Demand notice Ex. PA was given to the petitioner and milk measuring 660 mls. was purchased for analysis The petitioner, however, refused to sign the notice Ex. PA and the receipt Ex. PB. The sample was divided into three equal parts and bottled. After adding preservative, all three bottles were sealed, after due stoppering, labelling and wrapping in a thick paper. One of these samples was forwarded to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 29-7-1981. The Public Analyst vide his report confirmed that the sample was adulterated as the milk solids not fat was 6% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards.

(3.) THE petitioner denied all the allegations and claimed that neither he sells milk nor any sample was taken from him. He examined Swaran Singh in his defence. The learned counsel has urged that the complaint was silent as to the stirring of the milk at the time of drawing of the sample and as such the milk having not been made homogeneous there was a possibility that the sample drawn was not a representative sample. It is further argued that the witnesses while in the witness box have improved upon their statements in the complaint about the matter of stirring of the milk. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the observations of the Division Bench in State of Punjab v. Jagan Nath Criminal Appeal No 502. DBA of 1984 decided on 30-5-1986. The ratio of this authority is that in case the factum of stirring of the milk is missing in the complaint, it is upon the trial Court to entertain a doubt on the statements of the Food Inspector and the witnesses in the Court. The Court, is however, not bound to reject the evidence with respect to stirring of the milk sample because the sentence is omitted in the complaint. In the present case though the fact of stirring of the milk at the time of drawing of the sample was not mentioned in the complaint, both the witnesses who appeared at the trial made a statement that the milk had been duly stirred and was made homogeneous. This statement of the witnesses was not challenged and it was not suggested that in fact no stirring of the milk had been carried out. Since this statement of the witnesses was not challenged at the time of their cross-examination, the Courts below have relied upon the statement of the witnesses and not discarded the same on the basis that the fact was not mentioned in the complaint itself. I endorse this approach of the Courts below. Both the courts below have examined the evidence and having found no infirmity therein passed the orders of conviction. I may also add that it is difficult to endorse, the arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioner was taking 40 kgs. of milk with no intention to sell the same. At any rate no such explanation was offered by the petitioner. The order of conviction is well founded and calls for no interference. I hereby dismiss the revision petition. Petition dismissed.