SAKEEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILED in this revision petition is the judgment dated 25.2.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused Sakeel (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), against the judgment dated 9/16.12.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, convicting him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) SH . R.D. Goel, District Food Inspector, Ambala, in his complaint alleged that on 23.4.1988, at about 10.30 AM, the petitioner was found in possession of two drums of Cow milk for sale. He was intercepted and 750 grams of Cow's milk was purchased from him. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and after mixing formaline, it was put into three dry and clean bottles which were sealed according to rules and proper seal was affixed. One part of the sample in a sealed condition along with memorandum in Form No. VII was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. The remaining two parts of the samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Report so received revealed that the milk fat constituents were found 5.4 % while milk solid not fat was found 7.7% and thus deficiency in the milk solids not fat was to the tune of 0.8% though as per report Ex.PE it was wrongly mentioned as .9%. Report of the Public Analyst Ex.PE was served upon the petitioner, thereafter, the complaint was filed.

(3.) THE sole point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that, had there been adulteration in the milk, then with the addition of any foreign substance or water, both milk solid not fat and fat, should have proportionately been reduced. Deficiency of milk solid only and not in the fat may indicate that either the sample was not properly analysed or the cow was not properly fed. To the contrary, Mr. K.S. Godara, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana urged that the Public Analyst report does not meet with the standards as laid down in the rules. The percentage of various constituents of milk as disclosed by the Public Analyst could be sufficient to deduce a conclusion that there was over all deficiency of milk constituents. The article did not meet with prescribed standard.