TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARA Chand petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1964 as maintained by the learned Additional Judge, Faridabad, on appeal as also the minimum sentence known to law imposed on him being 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations are that Raj Kumar, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. A.C. Hemraj visited the tea shop of the accused petitioner and found him to be in possession of 9 kgs of cow's milk lying in a Pateela for public sale. The usual samples were taken and one of which when sent to the Public Analyst attracted the report of adulteration inasmuch as there was deficiency of milk solids not fact to the extent of 9% of the minimum prescribed standard. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE only point strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing on the record to show that before taking the sample of milk contained in the container it was properly stirred either by the Food Inspector or by his associate. The Courts below, however, accepted the evidence of Food Inspector at its face value that the contents of milk in the container had been made homogeneous and ruled out the defence plea that the milk was not stirred before the sample was taken. There appears to be substance in the contention of the learned defence counsel. On this point the Food Inspector has no doubt stated in the trial Court that the milk was made homogeneous before the same purchased but in the complaint, Exhibit PE, it is nowhere mentioned that the milk was made homogeneous or that it was stirred by the Food Inspector himself. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cream accumulates on the top of the milk and if the milk is not properly stirred when the sample is taken, it is bound to be deficient in essential ingredients.