KULDIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Section 16(i)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. As against this order, an appeal was taken to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who by judgment and order, dated 16.8.1986 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.7.1983 at about 10.20 a.m. Dr. Bhagwan Dass Mittal, Food Inspector, found the accused Kuldip Kumar carrying about five kilograms of cow's milk in a drum. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cow's milk on payment of Rs. 2/- as sample for analysis. The milk, thus, purchased was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. After necessary formalities, the bottles were packed and sealed. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. So, on completion of investigation, the accused was put to trial.

(3.) IN the first place, it has been contended that the petitioner was not a vendor of milk. He was carrying the milk to the residence of his uncle on that date for Bhog of Path. In this respect, he has brought on record one invitation card to show that there was, in fact, a religious ceremony at the residence of his uncle, Gopal Chand on that date. His case throughout was that the milk which he was carrying on that date was not meant for sale, but was for use in a religious function. It has been elicited from the prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was not carrying any measuring pot. The quantity of milk was only five kgs. and it was being carried in a small container. There were 5-6 persons, who were present at the time of seizure of milk from the petitioner, but none of them volunteered to become a witness to the incident of sale of milk to the Food Inspector. The prosecution does not bring any of those witnesses to say that the milk carried by the petitioner was meant for sale. In the circumstances, it is difficult to disbelieve the defence version of the case.