DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DES Raj, revision petitioner was tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default thereof, further RI for 1-1/2 months. This order of the learned Judicial Magistrate has been upheld by Shri S. C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. To challenge those two orders, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) THE allegations, on the basis of which the petitioner has been convicted are that on 17.2.1982 at about 9 a.m., Govt. Food Inspector Bhagwar Dass, accompanied by Dr. R. K. Bishnoi, had intercepted the petitioner, carrying 16 kg of cow's milk, in a drum, for public sale Memo Ex. PA was issued to him and a sample of 660 ml. was purchased on payment of Rs. 1.35 vide receipt Ex. PB. The milk purchased was divided into 3 equal parts and put in 3 dried and clean bottles. Formaline of prescribed quantity was added to those bottles. Those sample bottles were duly stopered labelled and wrapped. Paper Slips issued by the local Health Authority were also pasted to each of the bottles. Thereafter, they were duly sealed. Specimen impressions of the seal were also prepared and one sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the other two were kept with the local Health Authority. The Public Analyst certified that the milk was deficient in milk fat to the extent of 15% and in milk solids not fat to the extent of 45% from the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of this report of the Public Analyst necessary notice was sent to the petitioner which was received back undelivered. The complaint was then filed and a copy of the report was given to the petitioner.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a copy of the report was sent to the petitioner which, however, was returned undelivered. When the petitioner appeared in Court, he was supplied with the said copy. He, however, did not avail of his right to get the second sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The argument of the learned counsel is that if he had got sent the second sample bottle to the Central Food Laboratory, it could not have analysed the same, as it must have deteriorated by that time. There is, however, no material to return such a finding. If the second sample had been sent to the Central Food Laboratory and it had confirmed that the sample had deteriorated then, of course the petitioner could have taken advantage of this fact. The observations made in State of Haryana v. Amar Nath, 1983(1) FAC 234 do not lay down any different proposition. Every infraction of section 13(2) of the Act cannot automatically cause prejudice to the accused. It is for the accused person to show that, in fact, prejudice has been caused to him. I, thus, conclude that the conviction of the petitioner is well founded.