KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment/order dated 22.10.19.93 vide which the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in its default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') as well as the judgment dated 22.11.1095 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which he dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.4.1986 Food Inspector Daya Kishan accompanied by Dr. M.L. Kalra and one Krishan Kumar visited the shop of the accused situated at bus stop Sisai Bridge. Hansi. After disclosing his identity and serving a notice Ex.PA on the accused, the Food Inspector purchased 750 MLs. of cow milk out of a bucket containing 5 kgs of milk. The sample was divided into three parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. The preservative was added as required. The bottles were duly corked, labelled and sealed. One sealed sample bottle along with a copy of Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis through railway parcel and one copy of Form-VII with the impressions of seal was sent to the Public Analyst separately through registered post. The report of Public Analyst Ex.PE was received in due course of time. As per that report the sample of milk was found to be adulterated in as much as the milk solids not fat were found to be deficient by 7%. Then the Food Inspector lodged the complaint. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with a forwarding letter was sent through registered post to the accused.

(3.) On the basis of complaint and after recording the pre-charge evidence accused was summoned and charge under Section 16 (l)(i)(a) of the Act was framed. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the learned Government Food Inspector for the State and the learned defence counsel, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment/order dated 22.10.1993 preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.