NANDU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, Nandu petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide his order dated December 5, 1980 sentenced him to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on 16th June, 1978 C.L. Sikri, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. O.P. Bakshi was present near Dadri gate at Bhiwani for taking samples when the accused petitioner carrying 11 kgs. of cow's milk, contained in a drum, came there. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of milk from him for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.50 p. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as milk solids not fat were deficient by 31% of the minimum prescribed standard.

(3.) MR . O.P. Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, has raised the identical arguments which earlier urged before the Appellate Court and which have been elaborately dealt with. To my mind it would be totally wasteful to traverse the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that, I would endorse into to the reasoning and the findings of the Appellate Court. However, an argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner was raised that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and as such the whole proceedings have become vitiated. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on a decision in State of Maharashtra v. Koraga and another, 1979 (II) F.A.C. 137. The identical contention was raised before the Appellate Court. It has been so adequately and lucidly met by the learned Additional Session Judge in paragraph No. 10 of his judgment that it would be obviously wasteful and repetitive to cover the same ground over again and agreeing with his finding that there was compliance of Section 13 (2) of Act in this case in view of the clear statement made by R.B. Sarwaria Food Inspector, that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused by the Local Health Authority vide registered post and that the said witness was not at all cross examined which would show that the evidence given by the witness had been accepted. It was then casually contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no compliance of rules 16 and 17(b) of the Rules framed under the Act. There is no merit in this argument. The Food Inspector has categorically stated at the trial that after following the other procedure, the paper slip of the Local Health Authority issued by the said Authority was put on each battle. This statement of the Food Inspector remains unchallenged in cross-examination. There is thus no violation of the Rules 16 and 17(b) as is sought to be made out by the petitioner's counsel.