SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and concerns a sample of curd purchased by the Government Food Inspector Shri B.C. Verma from the petitioner Sohal Lal. This sample on analysis was found to contain milk fat 5% and milk solids not fat 11.7% and in this manner it was deficient in milk-fat by 17 per cent from the prescribed standard. The petitioner now stands convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on this account.

(2.) IT is now a well settled proposition of law that when a sample of curd is purchased by the Food Inspector, it is required to be homogenized and then divided into three parts to be put in separately sealed three bottles. It has also been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, ILR (1965) I Punjab 543, that the proper manner and method of taking a sample of curd is that the set curd should be divided vertically and the entire one compartment should be taken and churned and then divided into three parts. A reference to the record here would show that while there is mention in the testimony of Food Inspector (PW1) Shri B.C. Verma that the curd was made homogeneous before it was put into three separate bottles, the manner in which it was made homogeneous does not find mention in either his testimony or that of the other witnesses examined, Mr. S.S. Gill, appearing for the Advocate-General, Haryana, sought to advert in this behalf to the memo exhibit PC regarding the purchase of the sample of curd where a note is recorded to the effect that 600 grams of curd had been purchased for analysis out of one kunda after vertical cut and making it homogeneous. It was sought to be suggested that this note fulfilled the essential requirements of law and regards the manner of the taking of the sample of curd. This is indeed an untenable contention. When a particular manner and method is prescribed by law for the taking of the sample, it is not only to be taken in that way, but it must also be shown from the evidence on record that it was in fact in that manner that it was taken, and it is for the person who took the sample or who was there when it was taken to depose to the manner in which it had been taken. It cannot suffice merely to have a statement of this fact recorded in the recovery memo. This is a safeguard to ensure that no error creeps in the taking of the sample resulting in miscarriage of justice.