NATHI RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July, 22, 1974 Nathi Ram petitioner was carrying about 8 Kgs of milk when he was intercepted by Dr. S.B. Madan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon in the town of Palwal. Dr. Madan who is Ex -Officio Government Food Inspector was accompanied by Shri Mohinder Pal Singh, Tehsildar, Palwal. After disclosing his indemnity, the Government Food Inspector purchased 660 ML of milk from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 1.20 paise against cash receipt. The milk was separated into three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean bottles. 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle. The bottles were sealed and tied in wrapers. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the sample of milk to be deficient in milk fat by 28% and milk solids not fat by 42% of the minimum prescribed standard. The petitioner was put on trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal who accepted the case of the prosecution against the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved against the order of conviction, the petitioner unsuccessfully took his appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The present revision has been directed against the affirmation of the order of conviction and the dismissal of the appeal.

(2.) THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rule 9(j) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with, as the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the petitioner, at all, as required by the rules. Before the first appellate Court, the Public Prosecutor was frank enough to concede that this report was not supplied to the petitioner. It has been forcefully urged by Shri B.S. Shant, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any contravention of rule 9(j) which is mandatory in nature leads to the prejudice of the accused in his defence. Rule 9(j), ibid is as follows: - -

(3.) IN view of the above discussion as the Food Inspector failed to comply with the provisions of rule 9 (j), the judgment in revision cannot be sustained. The revision is accepted. The order under revision is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.