STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. The sample of milk purchased from the respondent was found to contain milk solids not fat to the extent of 8 per cent as against 8.5 per cent which is required by the statute. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent while relying on the authority reported as Sultan Sing v. State of Haryana, 1982 Chandigarh Law Reporter 102. The view taken in that cas was, however, departed from in State of Haryana v. Harpat and another, 1982 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 293. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and convict the respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE next question which calls for consideration is the imposition of sentence on the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that in such a case minimum sentence provided by law is 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported a Lingappa Shetty v. Hubli Darvar Municipal Corporation, 1980 PLR 14. Therein also, the Court took into consideration that the acquittal of the respondent in that case was based on earlier view, which was reversed lateron. On this consideration the respondent was not sent to Jail and inspite of being convicted was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) IN Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1723, an old man who had a clean record and who had sold milk which was marginally deficient in essential contents was awarded less than the minimum sentence prescribed by law.