RATTI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, on 1-4-1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, on 16-7-1986. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) ON 4-2-1986, H. R. Khanna, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Shri B. S. Dahiya intercepted the petitioner and found in his possession six cans containing 25 mounds of mixed cow and buffalo milk for sale. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and took a sample by serving notice Ex. PA. He purchased 660 ml. of milk from a can containing about 20 litres of milk for Rs. 1.70 paise, against receipt Ex. PB. The milk purchased was divided in three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles after adding requisite quantity of formaline as preservative in each bottle. The bottle were labelled, stoppered, securely fastened, twined and wrapped in a strong thick paper with signatures of the Local Health Authority, Gurgaon. The bottles were sealed with distict seals at the spot. The thumb-impressions of the petitioners were taken on the slips on the bottle and memoranda prepared. One sealed bottle was sent in a sealed cover along with two copies of memoranda on for VII, to the Public Analyst, Haryana, by a railway parcel. The other two bottles with two copies of memoranda on Form VII bearing seals' impressions were handed over to the Local Health Authority on 5-2-1998. A copy of the memoranda and the Specimen impressions of the seals used to seal the packets was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, separately. The sample was taken in the presence of Dr. B. S. Dahiya, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as PW2. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, (Ex. PD), milk fat was found 13% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards.

(3.) THE statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. He asserted that he was a tempo driver; that on relevant day, he was going in his tempo No. HRU 2236 towards Rohtak for getting the same passed but on way, he had noticed Mahabir carrying milk in cans on his motor cycle, since he was known to Mahabir, therefore, the Government Food Inspector obtained his thumb impressions as a witness/surety. Thus according to the accused the sample was taken in fact from Mahabir and not from him. In defence, he examined Raja Ram DW 1, Laxmi Narain DW 2, H. R. Khanna, DW 3, Ram Lal, DW 4 and Mahabir Parshad, DW 5.