STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. LAL CHAND JHARU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1. 000/- in default to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Magistrate First Class. Pathankot. He appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Session, Gurdaspur. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gurdaspur, allowed the appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him. The State of Punjab, therefore, preferred this appeal against the aforesaid acquittal of the respondent.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 29-7-1967 at about 6. 15 A. M. Shri Kewal Krishan, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. M. L. Tandon, raided the premises of the respondent where he was exposing 5 Kilos of cow's milk for sale in a container. Shri Kewal Krishan served the necessary notice upon him indicating his intention to purchase milk for purposes of analysis. He then made whole of the milk homogeneous and purchased 660 milliliters from it from the respondent on payment of 75 Paise as its price. The said milk of the sample was divided into three equal parts and poured into three dry and clean bottles. Shri Kewal Krishan added 16 drops of formalin as preservative into each of the said bottles and then the said bottles were stoppered, labelled, fastened and wrapped in thick paper separately. One of the said bottles was given to the respondent. The second sealed bottle, containing Sample of the milk, was sent to the Public Analyst. Chandigarh, who. after due analysis of the milk, found that the said milk was deficient in milk solids not fat by 1. 4 per cent. The third sealed bottle, containing milk of the sample, had been retained by Shri Kewal Krishan in his office. On receipt of the necessary certificate from the Public Analyst that the aforesaid milk was adulterated. Shri Kewal Krishan made complaint under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted and sentenced him, and his appeal against his conviction and sentence succeeded as stated above. We have heard the arguments and examined the record.

(3.) IT has been ruled in the judgment of the Supreme Court recorded in Laxman Kalu Nikalie v. The State of Maharashtra that It is now the settled law that the powers of the High Court in an appeal against the acquittal are not different from the powers of the same court in hearing an appeal against a conviction. The High Court in dealing with such an appeal can go into all questions of fact and law and reach its own conclusions on evidence provided it pays due regard to the fact that the matter had been before the Court of Session and the Sessions Judge had the chance and opportunity of seeing the witnesses depose to the facts. Further the High Court in reversing the judgment of the Sessions Judge, must pay due regard to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving a particular witness and must attempt to dispel those reasons effectively before taking a contrary view of the matter. It may also be pointed out that an accused starts with a presumption of innocence when he is put up for trial and his acquittal in no sense weakens that presumption, and this presumption must also receive adequate consideration from the High Court. This rule was again Lald down in Keshav Ganga Ram Nayge v. State of Maharashtra.