ARJAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, upholding the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) ARJAN Dass petitioner has a shop known as 'Prem Sweet House', situated in the main bazar, Moga and among other things he also sells curd prepared from unspecified milk, contained in an earthen pot. On 28th July, 1978, at about 10 a.m., Dr. Amrit Lal Dhingra, the Food Inspector purchased 660 grams of curd from the petitioner after paying him its price of Rs. 2.20 p. The curd was churned and thereafter it was made into 3 equal parts and each part was put into a clean and dry bottle. After observing all the formalities, one of the sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit PF., found it to be adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the complaint was filed for the prosecution of the petitioner.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Food Inspector had not taken the sample properly. In this connection he has referred to the statement of Dr. Amrit Lal Dhingra, who has appeared as PW 1. He has deposed that he had bought the curd and that he mixed it up before filing it in 3 separate bottles. The contention of the learned counsel is that this is not the proper method inasmuch as the curd which was contained in the 'koonda' should have been divided vertically and the entire one compartment should have been churned and then divided into three parts. It is contended that there is not a shred of evidence on record that this was done in the present case. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in Municipal Corporation of India v. Ghias Ram, ILR 1965 Pb. 543. In that case, in a similar situation it was observed : - "The learned counsel for the respondent has further urged that in this case the sample of curd was not taken in a proper manner. Both the expert witnesses are agreed that the proper manner and method of taking a sample of curd is that the set curd should be taken, churned, and then divided into three parts. There is no evidence that this was done in the present case. The learned counsel for the Delhi Municipal Corporation contends that no question on this aspect was put to the witnesses, but obviously it is for the prosecution to prove that the sample was taken in a proper manner so as to admit of proper and effective analysis."