SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18-5-1990, passed by the learned JMIC, Dhuri, whereby the petitioner was convicted under S.16 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default whereof to undergo further RI for one month, as well as against the judgment dated 22-2-1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the above mentioned judgment and order dated 18-5-1990 was dismissed.

(2.) ON March 24, 1988 at 10.30 a.m. Dr. Pardeep Kumar (the complainant) along with Dr. Surjit Singh was present near Sherpur - Dhuri bye - pass. They intercepted the petitioner when he was coming on bicycle with a drum containing 50 liters of mixed milk for sale for human consumption. After disclosing his identity as Food Inspector, Dr. Pardeep Kumar served the petitioner with a notice (Exhibit PA) and purchased 750 mililiters of mixed milk after making the same homogenous in the presence of witness. The sample was divided into three equal parts and each part was put into separate dry and clean bottles. The samples were sealed as per the prescribed procedure and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC, also duly attested by Dr. Surjit Singh. The sealed samples were sent to the Public Analyst and upon receipt of his report Ex. PD, in terms whereof the sample was found to be substandard being deficient in milk solids, not fat by 15%, that the complaint in question was instituted. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was summoned and thereafter vide order dated 15-9-1989, he was charge - sheeted for having violated the provisions of S.7 of the Act.

(3.) RELYING upon the prosecution evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of selling milk for human consumption which was found deficient in milk solids not fat by 15% of the minimum prescribed standard. The defence pleas taken by the petitioner, namely, (i) the milk was not for selling in open market and was being taken by him to his nephew's house for the purpose of Akhand Path; (ii) the Food Inspector was not competent to institute the complaint for want of valid delegation; and / or (iii) the milk sample was not taken after properly stirring it with a metallic rod by making it homogenous, were turned down. The learned Judicial Magistrate also discarded the version of defence witnesses and held the petitioner guilty under S.16 of the Act. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner reiterated the above stated pleas and further argued that no independent witness was joined by the complainant at the time of taking the sample though the same were available and as such of S.10(7) of the Act was violated. The aforesaid additional submission, however, was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that the complainant has categorically deposed that the independent witness, though available, refused to join and co - operate with him. The learned Sessions Judge observed that neither the complainant nor Dr. Surjit Singh (P.W. 3) had any animosity to falsely depose against the petitioner. The contention that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner because of delay in sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also rejected for the reason that an application moved by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate for sending the second part of the sample for re - analysis was got dismissed as withdrawn by him on 4-1-1989 by making an unconditional statement in the Court. The petitioner's appeal was accordingly dismissed.