JAI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner had preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on 9.7.1987 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above said judgments and the order of sentence, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on 27.4.1982 Food Inspector Kali Ram was accompanied by J.S. Sohi, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Health, Karnal. They were present near Nawal Cinema, Panipat. The petitioner was intercepted. At that time he was carrying 18 kilograms of mixed milk for sale. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 660 Mls. of milk. It was stirred. The sample so taken was divided into three parts, placed in three dry and clean bottles. Formaline was added in each bottle in the prescribed quantity. The bottles were sealed in accordance with law and procedure. The memos were prepared. One sealed bottle and a memo was sent to the Public Analyst. It was bearing the specimen of the seal used. The report of the Public Analyst was received. It was found that contents were 20% deficient in milk fats. On the receipt of the report, intimation envisaged under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sent to the petitioner. No reply was received. This led to the filing of the complaint in Court.

(3.) THE petitioner had been summoned and after the prosecution evidence was recorded, the statement of the petitioner followed in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner controverted all the circumstances appearing against him. He denied that he was selling adulterated milk. After three defence witnesses were examined, the learned trial Court held that prosecution has successfully proved in terms that the milk being sold by the petitioner was adulterated. The contention of the petitioner that the same when tested was not the same and that no notice given contemplated under sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was negatived. The learned trial Court thereupon passed the impugned order of sentence after holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.