TARA SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARA Singh Petitioner, who is a halwai carrying business at Sangrur, was sent up for trial under Section 16(1) (a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954). He was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class on 31st December 1962 for the above offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years besides a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Petitioner felt aggrieved and approached the Court of Session in appeal which came up before the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 8th April l963, who maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year, maintaining the fine of Rs. 2.000/ -, which is the minimum under these circumstances.

(2.) THE story for the prosecution runs as under. Shri P. R. Malhotra, Government Food Inspector, Sangrur, visited the shop of the Petitioner on 31st January 1962 at about 10.45 a.m. and found the Petitioner in possession of about 5 seers of cow's milk for sale lying in a bucket. After giving notice to the Petitioner in the prescribed form under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, l956, Shri Malhotra purchased 24 ozs. of milk from the Petitioner for Re. 0.33 nP. as a sample. This sample was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry clean bottles. Sixteen drops of formalin were added in each of those three battles which were properly labelled, stoppered and securely fastened and then made into sealed parcels. One of these bottles was made over to the Petitioner, while one was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and one was retained by the Food Inspector himself. After examination the Public Analyst submitted his report saying that the milk sent to him was adulterated with 95 per cent of skimmed milk. It was thereafter that a complaint was lodged against the Petitioner which ended in the above mentioned result.

(3.) THE prosecution examined Shri P. R. Malhotra P. W. 1, Isher Chand P. W. 2 and Sadhu Lal P. W. 3. P. W. 2, however, did not support the prosecution case and both the Courts below came to the conclusion that he had been won over by the Petitioner. Those Courts also did not rely on the defence evidence.