RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 22.5.1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon, by his judgment/order dated October 7, 1986 for an offence under section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 15.3.1984, the Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. R.K. Saini, had intercepted the petitioner while carrying about 25 Kgs. of cows' milk in a drum for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 Milks. of mls. on payment. The milk was divided into 3 equal parts and put into 3 dry and clean bottles. Each bottle was properly stoppered, secured, fastened, wrapped and sealed. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the sample of milk to be adulterated for the reason that the milk fats were 20% deficient and milk solids not fat were 5% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner, which resulted in his conviction. The appeal against his conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, and the same was rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was no averment in the complaint that before taking sample of the milk in the drum, the same was stirred and made homogeneous, which omission was fatal to the prosecution. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that even at the trial, the prosecution did not prove as to how the milk in the drum was stirred and made the sample, alleged to have been taken, to be representative sample of the whole. It is, thus, argued that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are liable to be set aside simply for this reason. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on certain decisions of this Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, 1984(1) FAC 166; State of Haryana v. Rameshwar, 1987(1) FAC 2; and Prem v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 152.