GOPAL DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A categoric doubt about the ratio in Jagat Ram v. State of Haryana 1981 Chand LR 684 (Punj and Har) had necessitated the hearing of this criminal revision by the Division Bench.

(2.) SINCE the primary issue herein is the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid precedent, it is unnecessary to advert to the facts in any great detail. Gopal Dutt petitioner was brought to trial on charges under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palwal, and having been found guilty thereof was convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2. 000/ -. The appellate Court in its judgment, remarkable both in its exhaustiveness and lucidity, specifically noticed the six contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and adverting to each one of them repelled the same. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner was primarily placed on Jagat Rani's case (supra) for pressing his stand that the deficiency found in the sample by the Public Analyst being in respect of solids not fat only and the fat being in excess of the prescribed limit, no offence was made out. The appellate Court, however, rejected this contention whilst noticing that the Full Bench in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh (1976) 78 Pun LR 433 : 1976 Cri LJ 1648 and the other High Courts and the Supreme Court had taken a view at variance with that in Jagat Ram's case. As already noticed the view in Jagat Ram's case was doubted at the motion stage itself and the petition was admitted to hearing by the Division Bench.

(3.) BEFORE us learned Counsel for the petitioner had vigorously canvassed for the adoption of the view in Jagat Ram's case 1981 Chand LR 684 (Punj and Har) (supra ). Reliance was also placed on the observations to the same tenor in Hans Raj v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) FAC 396. On these premises it was contended that because the sample of the milk was found on analysis to nave milk fat in excess of the minimum prescribed standard and was merely deficient in milk solids not fat than the prescribed limit of 8. 5 per cent the said variations could be set off against each other and the milk could not be held as adulterated within the definition under the Act. There is no gainsaying the fact that the observations in Jagat Ram's case as also those in Hans Raj's case (with regard to one of the two grounds for acquittal) lend signal support to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. It is, however, equally manifest that these are in direct conflict with what has been authoritatively laid down by the Full Bench in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh (1976) 78 Pun LR 433 : 1976 Cri LJ 1648. Therein the specific legal issues which fell for consideration were formulated in the following terms: