VED PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.11.1986 passed by Shri R.N. Batra, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani upholding the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentencing the present petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The petitioner faced trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.3.1982, Shri Amar Nath Gupta, Govt. Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. Jiya Lal and Ram Lal P.W. intercepted the petitioner (accused before the trial Court) in the area of Bhiwani at about 8.30 a.m. when the petitioner was found carrying about 10 kilograms of cow milk in a drum, for public sale. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and demanded sample of the cow milk which was being carried by the petitioner. The Food Inspector, after stirring the milk properly, obtained 660 mls. of cow milk on payment of Rs. 2/- for the purpose of analysis after complying with the formalities prescribed by law and adding the necessary formalin in three bottles. The sample was sent to the public analyst for examination. On examination by the public analyst, the milk was found to be adulterated inasmuch as the milk solids not fat were 19% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of the report, the Food Inspector filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate. During trial the Food Inspector as well as Dr. Jiya Lal were examined but Ram Lal who is said to have witnessed the occurrence was not examined by the prosecution on the ground that he had been won over by the petitioner. The defence examined two witnesses. On conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the C.J.M., Bhiwani. As against the said order of conviction, an appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani who by his order dated 15.11.1986 upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) IT appears that the same point has been taken before the Appellate Court but the Appellate Court was pleased to negative the contention raised in this behalf on the ground that the petitioner had furnished his address at the time of his interception by the Food Inspector and as such it is the petitioner and petitioner alone who is to be blamed for the wrong address given by him. It transpires during trial that these two villages are adjacent having common boundaries. The notice under Section 13(2) was sent to the place of the petitioner by registered post but it had not been returned after service. It is on record that the petitioner had furnished his address to the Food Inspector at the time of interception and a notice was issued at the address given by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in Court in pursuance of summons issued to him but filed a petition for examination of seized sample of milk by the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad after a lapse of about three months. According to the Appellate Court, no purpose would have been served by sending the bottle to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad because in spite of use of preservatives, the seized sample of milk must have been spoiled by this time. It appears that the Appellate Court has taken a correct view of the matter and I find nothing to disagree.