DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Pal, petitioner-accused has filed the present revision against the judgment dated 25.5.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 4.11.1988 rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case as stated in the complaint lodged by the Government Food Inspector, A.R. Nehra are that on 26.4.1985 at about 6.30 P.M., he along with S.K. Gosain was present at Sonepat-Bahalgarh road near ECE Factory when the accused was intercepted by them. He was found in possession of 18 kg of goat milk for public sale contained in a drum. After serving notice in writing to him, Food Inspector purchased 660 ml of goat milk against the payment of Rs. 2/- for analysis. Milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and transferred in three dry and clean bottles. Necessary drops of Formalin were added in each bottle and thereafter bottles were sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Spot memo attested by the accused and the witnesses was prepared. Out of these bottles, one bottle was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Haryana. Chandigarh, while the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Sonepat. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated as it was found to contain milk fat 9% deficient and milk solids not fat to be 28% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. Dis-satisfied with the said report, another sample was got sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, who in his report Ex. PF dated 29.8.1985 declared the sample to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of goat milk of Haryana as laid down in the table below item A.11.01.11 of PFA Rules (1955) as milk solids not fat were less than the minimum prescribed limit. On these allegations, notice under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) WHEN examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), the petitioner-accused denied the prosecution allegations completely. He pleaded that the sample was obtained from somebody else and he was asked to witness the sample proceedings but when he refused to do so, he was falsely implicated in this case. To support his stand, he examined Ram Pal, DW-1, who testified that Food Inspector had intercepted a milk vendor and had asked the petitioner-accused to witness the sample proceedings but he had refused to do so, upon which he was threatened by the Food-Inspector. Deep Chand DW-2 was tendered for cross-examination.