PREM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, vide his judgment dated 1.6.1994 and order dated 2.6.1994. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Sessions Judge, Hisar, and the same was dismissed vide order dated July 17, 1995. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court under section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution case are that on 24.1.1981, Shri Teja Singh, Government Food Inspector, along with Dr. Suresh Goyal, Medical Officer, Hisar, intercepted the petitioner near Police Lines at Hisar, when he was found to be in possession of 15 Kgs. of cow's milk in a drum in his possession for public sale. After disclosing his identity and intention, the said Food Inspector purchased 750 Mls. of cow's milk on payment of Rs. 4/- by way of sample. The said quantity was divided into 3 equal parts; put into three dry and clean bottles after adding 20 drops of preservative in beach bottle. One of the three samples, thus obtained, was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, who reported the said sample to be deficient in milk solids not fat by 7.0% leading to the prosecution of the petitioner culminating in his conviction, as stated above.

(3.) SHRI Ram Niwas Kush, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the judgment of the two courts below has argued that the contents of the drum were not properly stirred and the sample taken cannot be said to be a representative sample in the eyes of law and that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the milk fats were found more than the prescribed standard but the milk solids not fat were found deficient by a negligible margin. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the marginal deficiency in milk solids not fat may be due to the fact that the cows were not properly fed or there might have been some error in analysing the sample or that there was no proper representative sample. Thus, it has been argued that if the milk solids not fat have been found to be marginally less than the prescribed limit, the accused cannot be held to be liable and convicted under the Act.