JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against judgment dated 13.7.1993 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order sentence dated 20.12.1991 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra convicting and sentencing him for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, was dismissed.

(2.) ON 29.3.1985, a sample of milk was seized from the petitioner which, on analysis, was found 5% deficient in milk solids not fat. On a complaint having been preferred, the petitioner was proceeded against by the trial Court for having committed an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and was charged accordingly.

(3.) IN the present revision petition, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the factum of stirring of milk before taking the sample was not mentioned in the complaint which is on a printed format wherein, although, there is a mention of the milk having been stirred, but the requirement of the law is that it should be specifically averred in the complaint by the Food Inspector, who had seized the sample.