KALI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, Kali Ram seeks to have the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1979, confirming the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, in Criminal Case No. 276 of 1979 convicting the petitioner for committing the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with Rs. 1000/- as fine and in the alternative further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months quashed.

(2.) ON 30.4.1975 at about 8-30 a.m. while the Food Inspector Brij Lal alongwith Dr. P.D. Chaudhary was present near Mukand Bhawan Ladwa, the accused petitioner came on a cycle with a drum containing cows' milk for sale. After disclosing his identity and after serving notice, Exhibit P.A., to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 Mls. of cows' milk on payment of Rs. 1.05 P., against receipt, Exhibit P.B. After completing the necessary formalities, one of the sealed sample bottles was given to the accused while the remaining 2 bottles were deposited in the C.M.O.'s. office at Kurukshetra. One of these bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, who vide his report, Exhibit P.D., found the sample adulterated as its milk fat was deficient by 10% and milk solids not fat by 23% of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the complaint was filed for the prosecution of the petitioner .

(3.) MR . Goel, who argued the case for the petitioner, vehemently argued that although evidence in respect of the taking of the samples from out of the milk carried by the petitioner and thereafter sent to the Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food laboratory alongwith their reports were produced in the trial Court but the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory was not put to the petitioner at the time of his examination recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the same could not be used against him for holding that he was found in possession of adulterated milk. The examination of the petitioner under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, reveals that he was only asked about the purchase of milk and the formalities observed by the Food Inspector at that time.