MEHAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, on 25-11-1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Session Judge, Ambala, on 14-5-1986. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :-

(2.) ON 20-10-1980, I. N. Sehgal, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. D. P. Goel, the then Senior Medical Officer Incharge of Civil Hospital at Naraingarh, visited the premises of the accused petitioner who was running a halwai shop. The accused was found in possession of about 4 kgs. of unindicated milk contained in a patila for public sale Rameshwar Dass, a public witness, was also associated. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and thereafter served notice Exhibit PA upon the accused. He purchased 660 millilitres of milk on payment of Rs. 1.65 Paise for analysis and issued receipt Exhibit PF to the accused. The milk, so purchased, was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. Eighteen drops of formaline were added in each bottle as preservative. The bottles were stoppered, labelled and wrapped in thick paper twined with thread and sealed with the seals of the Food Inspector and the doctor. A paper slip issued by the LHA, bearing code number, serial number and signature was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. The thumb impressions of the accused were taken on each bottle in such a manner so that they partly appeared on toe paper slips and partly on the outer-cover of the bottled. Spot memo Exhibit PC was prepared, which was thumb marked by the accused and attested by the PWs. One such sealed bottle along with a copy of memo in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst through Shambhu Nath Peon. A copy of memo in form VII was separately sent to the Public Analyst through the same person. The other two bottles were deposited with the LHA. On receipt of report Exhibit PD of the Public Analyst, declaring the sample as adulterated i.e., milk fat 17% deficient and milk solids not fat 6% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard, prosecution was launched against the accused through complaint Exhibit PE and he was informed of the same through registered post along with copy of the report of the Public Analyst.

(3.) THE accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the allegations levelled against him. His plea was that he had no concern with the shop from where the sample was taken; that the shop belonged to one Sardara, which fact was brought to the notice of the Food Inspector who obtained his thumb-impression on the document despite the fact that the shop belonged to Sardara; that the milk, from which the sample was taken, was cow's milk and a board to this effect was displayed on the shop; and that the Food Inspector mentioned the said milk as unindicated.