BALDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALDEV Raj, petitioner was convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short the Act) by the learned sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Rigorous imprisonment for four months in default of payment of fine was also awarded. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

(2.) THE prosecution story, as gathered from the evidence is that on 8.12.1978 at about 9 p.m., Government Food Inspector Kali Ram, accompanied by Dr. J.S.Sohi, Deputy Chief Medical Officer (H) Karnal, was present near the hospital on Barsat Road, Panipat. the petitioner came on that road with 15 kgs of cow milk, contained in a drum for sale. Mahohar Lal, Pharmacist, ESI Hospital, Panipat also reached there perchance and the Government Food Inspector associated him in the proceedings. Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity tot he petitioner. He purchased 660 ml of cow milk from the petitioner after observing the formalities prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He divided the purchased milk into three parts and put each part in one dry an clean bottle and added necessary preservative to such bottle. He converted each part of the sample into a sealed packet in accordance with the prescribed procedure. One part of the sealed packet, along with memo inform VII, was sent to the Public Analyst, while a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal with which the sample was sealed, was sent separately to him. Vide report Ex.PD, the Public Analyst found that milk fat contents in the sample was 6.5% while milk solids not fat 7.8% and thus, the milk was adulterated as the milk solids not fat were 8% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. Thereafter the Government Food Inspector launched prosecution in Court against the petitioner.

(3.) ON the application of the petitioner, second part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory Ghaziabad from where report was received to the effect that milk fact contents in the sample were 64%, while milk solid not fat were 802%. Thus, according to the report of the Director, the sample did not conform to the standard of cow milk for Haryana (It may be mentioned here that no exhibit mark has been placed on that report. However, as it had superseded the report of the Public Analyst, it was read in evidence.