AMAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner -one, that the milk was not meant for sale as it was kept for preparation of tea, the petitioner being a tea vendor, and two, the milk was not stirred before it was purchased by the Food Inspector, rather, upper layer was kept aside and the lower layer of the milk was taken as sample resulting in milk being found as sub -standard.

(2.) THERE is no merit in either of the two contentions. So far as the first contention is concerned, it has to be repelled in view of the Full Bench decision in Budh Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1985(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 510, C.R. No. 798 of 1980 (FB). Their Lordships have held that the purchase by the Food Inspector in terms of Section 10 of the Act of a sample of milk or sugar or tea; kept by a tea vendor not for sale as such but for being used in preparation of tea; for being served to his customers amount to a sale in terms of provisions of Section 7 read with Section 2(xiii) of the Act.

(3.) THE second contention too must fail because it is the defence of the petitioner that the upper layer had himself been removed by him before the Food Inspector took the sample of the milk. The Food Inspector was not cross -examined in that regard. Thus it has to be presumed that whatever milk was meant for storage and sale, had been purchased by Food Inspector in the condition as it was. Before the petitioner could raise such a contention, it was incumbent on him to first put his plea in the mouth of the Food Inspector so that adequate basis was laid in the evidence on the strength of which the argument could be raised. Since no such effort was made, the contention does not prevail.