DILBAG RAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILBAG Rai, petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal revision against the judgment dated 6.12.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby order dated 18.5.1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak convicting the petitioner-accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half months was upheld.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that on 20.1.1986 at 4.00 p.m., Food Inspector S.L. Anand in the company of Dr. V.K. Govila and one Sunil Kumar visited the stall of Dilbag Rai, petitioner-accused located opposite Sheela Talkies, Rohtak. At that time, the accused was having 3 kgs. of boiled cow milk in Patila for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cow milk for analysis after serving notice on Form VI, Ex.PA upon the accused on payment of Rs. 3/- vide receipt obtained from him. The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts. Eighteen drops of formalin 40% were added as preservative in each bottle. Thereafter, these bottles were stoppered, labelled, securely fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick paper separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Seizure memo Ex.PC was prepared at the spot which was signed by the Food Inspector and other witnesses as well as attested by the accused. Out of the three bottles, two sealed bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Rohtak. The third sealed bottle was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, who on analysis, vide his report Ex.PD found the milk to be adulterated as it contained Milk Fat 3.7% and Milk Solid Not-Fat 6.9%. In this manner, it was deficient in Milk Fat 7.5% and Milk Solid Not Fat 19% of the minimum prescribed standard. Thereafter, the complaint was filed.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. He took up the stand that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He examined Sunil Kumar (DW-1), who testified that on 20.1.1986 at about 11.30 a.m. Food Inspector had visited the shop of the accuse in the company of one other person and demanded the milk for analysis but the accused informed him that he only sells tea and not milk. Thereafter the sample was taken from the boiled milk by Food Inspector. He admitted his signature on memo Exs.PA and PB. The trial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence rejected his defence version and while accepting the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused as noticed above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Rohtak as noted above. Hence the present criminal revision.