MAHABIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that as per the respondents on 26.8.1983 at 6.00 a.m. the Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner at the main bazar Bahadurgarh. Petitioner was found having in his possession about 15 kgs. of milk for public sale. It had been kept in a drum. The Food Inspector demanded a sample after disclosing his identity. 660 mls. of milk was purchased. It was stirred and payment was made. The same was divided into three equal parts in three dry clean bottles. Two drops of formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled, stoppered and secured. They were wrapped in strong thick paper. They were sealed. Thumb impression of the petitioner was obtained on the sealed bottle in such a way that both the paper slip and wrapper of sample carry a part of the thumb impression. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. Report was received that the sample contained adulterated milk.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court after recording the evidence held that prosecution has successfully proved its case that the milk was for sale and it was adulterated. On 30.5.1987, the petitioner was held guilty of the offence punishable under section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Vide a separate order, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. An appeal was filed in the Court of Sessions at Rohtak. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of learned trial Court. The sentence, however, was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and the fine to Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(3.) THE said contention is totally devoid of any merit. Both the Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that the milk from which the sample was taken in fact was for sale. There is no ground to take a different view. There is nothing otherwise also on the record to indicate that the milk carried by the petitioner was for a relative of the petitioner and not for sale. Such a plea was rightly rejected to be an afterthought.