SHER MOHD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 8.8.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, 'the Act'), was dismissed. Concisely, the facts of the case are that the complainant Government Food Inspector found the petitioner in possession of 2000 liters of mixed milk for public sale, contained in a tanker, bearing registration No. HR -38 -1286. After issuing notice to the petitioner, 1 Liter and 500 mls. of mixed milk was purchased, after mixing the whole contents properly. Dr. Kuldeep Singh, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon, was present at the time of drawing the sample. An amount of Rs. 18 was paid to the petitioner. The mixed milk so purchased was divided into three parts and one part was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis. It was reported that the milk fat were found to be 1.20% while the milk solids not fats were to the extent of 5.78%, against the specified limit of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively, laid down for mixed milk in the table appended to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(2.) AFTER receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. After completion of the evidence, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, besides payment of fine of Rs. 5,000.

(3.) THE criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 6.11.2012 and at that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded not to challenge the verdict of conviction on merits. However, he submitted' that keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side. Therefore, notice of motion was issued for the limited purpose ' of consideration of quantum of sentence only.