INDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDER petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by Shri V.S. Malik, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal. In default of payment of fine, he was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner were upheld by Shri D.D. Yadav, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Faridabad vide his judgment dated April 11, 1985.

(2.) THE case against the petitioner was that on August 26, 1981 Shri B.C. Verma, Government Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner near octroi post Mathura Road, Palwal when he was carrying about twenty four kilograms of cow's milk on his cycle in two drums for public sale. Dr. L.R. Sardana, Senior Medical Officer, Palwal was accompanying the Food Inspector. The Government Food Inspector served a notice Exhibit PA and purchased 660 mls of milk from one drum containing about ten kilograms of milk on payment of Rs. 1.50 vide receipt Exhibit PB. The purchased quantity of milk was divided into three parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles after requisite quantity of formaline was added. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst found that the milk contained milk fat 5.6% and milk solids not fat 7.9%. The sample was deficient in milk solids not fat by 7%.

(3.) IT was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that marginal deficiency in milk solids not fat contents of the sample was due to the reason that the milk analysed was not a representative sample of the milk stored in the drum. Milk in the drum was not thoroughly stirred and made homogeneous before taking the sample. In fact, there was no document on record to show that the milk was stirred prior to the purchase of sample milk. This allegation was not even made in the complaint although witnesses deposed that the milk in the drum was stirred but their deposition was an afterthought. It was necessary to mention in the complaint that the milk was made homogeneous before taking the sample. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 69. In this case also the Food Inspector had stated that the milk was not made homogeneous before the same was purchased. This fact was, however, denied by the petitioner. In the complaint it was nowhere mentioned that the milk was made homogeneous or that it was stirred by the Food Inspector or by the petitioner. It was held that the evidence of the Food Inspector could not be accepted at its face value.