BAGGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order dated 31.10.1990, petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for committing an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act).

(2.) IT is essential to mention here that sample of milk was drawn by the competent officer on 31.8.1983. Sample was sent for chemical examination. Vide report Ex. PE. it was found to be adulterated as the milk solids not fat was deficient by 6% of the minimum prescribed standards. On filing of complaint, trial Magistrate ordered that the trial be commenced treating it as a warrant case. After recording necessary evidence, trial court, vide order dated 12.8.1985, found him guilty, convicted and contented him accordingly. He went in appeal, which was allowed and the matter was sent for retrial. His revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. On retrial, he was again found guilty, convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in para 1 of this order.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties heard. This Court feels that the opinion arrived at by the appellate Court below was not correct. Section 16A of the Act reads as under :-