HARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARJIT Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in an exhaustive and lucid judgment had adverted to every contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and repelling the same, has maintained his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on July 24, 1980, Dr. Kirpal Singh, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Harvant Singh Gill went to the shop of the petitioner and purchased 660 mls. of milk from him for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.50 P. as its price. The sample of milk sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to contain milk fat to the extent of 3.6% and milk solids not fat 9.7%. As the milk was deficient in milk fat, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(3.) MR . Shant, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there is no evidence on the record that the sample of milk has thoroughly shaken and the same was made homogeneous before its analysis by the Public Analyst. It was argued that the report of the Public Analyst was silent on the point and consequently the result arrived at could not be implicitly accepted and the benefit must necessarily go to the petitioner. Reliance was placed in this context on Sultan v. State of Haryana, 1981(2) FAC 116. It is unnecessary to examine the aforesaid argument in any detail because this point stainds concluded against the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case State of Haryana v. Harpat etc. Crl. Appeal No. 571/LBA of 1980, decided on March 3, 1982. Therein on this aspect the identical contention raised has been repelled and sultan's case (supra) has been over-ruled.