SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision is to the judgment dated 05.06.2007 passed by Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-convict/ revisionist against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2005 passed by Ms. Anshu Shukla, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, State of Haryana, through Food Inspector, filed complaint against the accused with the allegations that Kirpal Singh is a Food Inspector under the Act for all local areas of District Panipat vide notification dated 29.03.1985. He alongwith Dr. V.K. Malhotra, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Panipat raided the premises of petitioner/accused on 19.06.1997 at 9:00 A.M. at HUDA Colony, Panipat. Accused/petitioner was found in possession of 10 Kgs. of buffalo milk for public sale contained in one iron drum. Government Food Inspector demanded a sample of milk by giving him a notice in writing on form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and purchased 750 milliliter of buffalo milk after mixing the whole contents properly. Rs.7.50 was paid for the said milk. The said milk was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry clean empty bottles and two drops of 40% formalin per 25 Mls. were added as preservative in each bottle. Bottles were duly sealed and labeled by the Inspector. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in a sealed packet. Two sealed bottles of sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 19.06.1997 in a sealed packet. Vide certificate Ex.PE, Public Analyst, Haryana, sample was found adulterated. It was observed by Public Analyst that milk fat is 40% deficient and milk solids is deficient by 39% and on that account the said sample is not of the prescribed standard and the accused has contravened the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act").

(3.) In pre-charge evidence, Kirpal Singh appeared as PW1. Charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.