CHANDER BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgement dated 17-7-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar whereby the sentence and conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) recorded by Shri S. C. Goel, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad vide his judgement and order dated 19-10-1992 has been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 17-6-1985, Government Food Inspector Shiv Dayal accompanied by Dr. S. P. Mimani intercepted the petitioner at Rattia Octroi Post, Fatehabad while carrying two drums of cow milk each containing 18 liters meant for public sale. A public witness was joined in the party. After expressing his desire to take sample of cow milk from the petitioner, a notice was served. After the milk was made homogeneous, the Food Inspector purchased 660 millilitres of milk for analysis which was divided into three parts and after adding preservative as per rules the same was sealed in three dry and clean bottles in equal quantity. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst and the same was found to be adulterated as it contained milk fat and milk solids not fat deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. After complying with the necessary formalities the said Food Inspector filed a complaint for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner. By order dated 19-5-1991, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. He challenged his conviction and sentence and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 9-5-1992 accepted appeal and set aside sentence and appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court to be tried in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter the case was ordered to be tried as warrant case. After recording the evidence and believing the prosecution evidence the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate again convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. The appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Appellate Court and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgement.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have gone through the record of the trial Court which has been summoned at the motion stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties. It may be stated that since the finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below is concurrent and no illegality or irregularity could be pointed out, notice qua sentence only, was issued to the State.