STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case, in brief. are that on 7-11-1977 Dr. M.R. Chhabra who exercised the powers of Food Inspector led a raiding party and intercepted Tilak Raj accused-respondent at Jalalabad while the respondent was carrying milk in a container on his cycle. Some milk was purchased from the respondent which was divided into three equal parts and was transferred into three dry and clean bottles. Each bottle was labelled stoppered and scaled according to rules. One of the sample bottles was sent to Public Analyst and the remaining two bottles were deposited with Local Health Authority, Ferozepur. The Public Analyst as per his report Ex. PE found that the sample milk contained milk fat 4 per cent and milk solids not fat 7, 6 per cent. It was deficient in milk solids not fat by 8 per cent and was, thus, adulterated. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent and challan was presented in the Court of Shri S.N. Aggarwal. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka for trial of the respondent for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent was that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. In fact he was not running the business of selling milk.

(3.) THE only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned trial Court wrongly held that the respondent was carrying the milk for his father and as such was not a milk-seller. In fact the provisions of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were fully attracted in the instant case and the accused was liable for the offence of selling adulterated milk. This contention of the learned counsel, however, does not hold good. It has come on record, that when Dr. M.R. Chhabra informed the respondent that he was to take a sample the respondent protested that he was not a milkvendor and the business of selling milk was being run by his father who was holding a licence for the same. Dr. K.N. Makkar PW 2 when cross-examined admitted that the respondent was not a milk seller but it was his father who was carrying on that business. In view of the statements of thee two witnesses it could not be asserted that the version put up by the respondent was an after thought. The witnesses also admitted that the respondent never cold milk to anybody in their presence. The sale of milk only to the Food Inspector under protest was no sale. In the case of Public Prosecutor v. Y. Pulla Raddy, AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 302, it was observed as under :-