HAR LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAR Lal petitioner was convicted by Shri R.C. Gupta, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, vide his order dated 31.1.1983, under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide his order dated 8.1.1985, upheld the conviction of the petitioner, recorded by the learned Magistrate but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also reduced to two months. Feeling aggrieved, Har Lal petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that at the time of the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector, the milk was not stirred and thus made homogeneous and this omission on the part of the Food Inspector has led to unsatisfactory analysis by the Public Analyst. He has further argued that the fat contents were found to be 4.6% which is more than the required percentage of 4 per cent. Milk solids not fat were found to be 8.1 per cent which are slightly less than the required percentage of 8.5 per cent.

(3.) ALTHOUGH in this case the Food Inspector has stated in his statement that he did stir the milk at the time of seizure of the sample, but the fact that this is not mentioned in the complaint cannot be ignored. A complaint is the foundation on which the prosecution stands and non-mention of such an important requirements shakes the entire prosecution case and is becomes very difficult to accept the subsequent statement of the Food Inspector to the effect that he did stir the milk. If he had stirred the milk at the time of seizure of the sample then the contents of the milk fat might not have been 4.6 per cent. It is matter of common knowledge that if the milk is not stirred properly fats accumulate at the top. In the circumstances of the case, when stirring is not mentioned in the complaint and milk fat is more than the prescribed standard, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. I, therefore, accept the revision and set aside the impugned judgments. The petitioner is accordingly, acquitted of the charge.