THE STATE Vs. VASDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P . R. Malhotra, Food Inspector, Sangrur, purchased 24 ounces of mixed milk (cow, buffalo and goat) as sample from Sadhu Lal, Bachana Ram, Kapur Singh, Vas Dev and Iqbal Singh accused -respondents separately on different dates and sent each of these samples to the Public Analyst for analysis under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Public Analyst found all those samples of mixed milk as adulterated. Thereafter the Food Inspector as was the procedure instituted separate complaints under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act against each of them which came up for hearing before Shri Harjit Lal Randev, Magistrate First Class, Sangrur. Sadhu Lal, Bachana Ram and Kapur Singh accused -respondents OH the basis of their alleged previous convictions under section 16 of the Act were liable to be awarded enhanced punishment under section 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Act and so in the cases against them the procedure of a warrant case was followed and in the other two cases against Vas Dev and Iqbal Singh accused -respondents the procedure of a summons case was adopted.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the accused in all the cases urged that even if the allegations set out in the complaints were to be accepted as correct then also the accused could not be convicted in view of the law as laid down in the case The State v. Raja Ram, (1962) 64 P.L R. 802. Till then a part of complainant's evidence had been recorded in the cases against Bachana Kara and Kapur Singh, while Iqbal Singh accused only had been examined under section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in his case and no evidence had been led in Sadhu Lal's case. The complainant's evidence had been closed in Vas Dev's case. The learned counsel's plea found favour with the trial Magistrate. He, consequently, discharged Sadhu Lal accused and acquitted the rest, The State has come up in appeal separately (Criminal Appeals Nos. 198, 200, 225, 226 and 227 of 1963 against the above orders. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide any appeal against the order of discharge, hence Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1963 against Sadhu Lal has been treated as a revision. This judgment will dispose of all these four appeals and revision as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Raja Rum's case relied upon by the trial Court in his impugned order laid down : -

(3.) FOR the above reasons all the four appeals and the revision petition are accepted. Vas Dev accused -respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1963 is convicted under section 16(l)(a) of the Act and sentenced to the payment of a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other four cases are remanded to the trial Magistrate for further proceedings according to law as indicated above.