RAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Pal petitioner was brought to trial under Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur, who found him guilty thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1500.00 on 1/6/1982. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in an elaborate judgment upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to 6 months, maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) The allegations are that on October 18, 1980, Dr. Surinder Kumar Bansal, Government Food Inspector, Sangrur, accompanied by a departmental colleague Dr. Ram Kumar, P. W. 2, raided the premises of the petitioner, who was then found to be in possession of 2 kgs. of curd contained in a kunda for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of curd for analysis on payment of Rs.2.50 p. against receipt Exhibit P. B. The sample of curd sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated as the same was found to be deficient in milk fat by 45%. Accordingly, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced by the trial Court.

(3.) The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sample of curd has not been taken in accordance with the well recognised practice which has hardened into Judge made law. There is catena of precedents that the curd has to be vertically cut and the entire cut compartment has to be taken out ; that churned and later on divided into 3 equal parts for being put into sample bottles. The Food Inspector has no doubt stated at the trial that before taking the sample, he divided the curd in the kunda into 4 compartments vertically and then churned one of the compartments of curd in a garva to make it homogeneous but in the complaint it is nowhere mentioned that it was done so. Dr. Ram Kumar, P. W. 2, is also silent oil this point. It is a matter of common knowledge that cream accumulates on the top of curd and if the curd is not properly stirred when the sample is taken, it is bound to be deficient in essential ingredients. The process of churning has not been adopted in the instant case and thus serious prejudice to the petitioner has obviously been caused. The samples taken are not representative of the entire substance as these should have been. In any case, the petitioner has not to suffer for the fault of the prosecution.