GURDIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdit Singh and Ajaib Singh of Jaspat and Surjan Dass of Verka, district Amritsar, have been convicted under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of six months, both by the Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Against their convictions, they have come to this Court by means of this revision petition.

(2.) On 7th of August, 1966, at about 9 A.M., the petitioners were going on their cycles, each carrying two Valtohas of milk, near the crossing in the Adda Bazaar, Tarn Taran, the Government Food Inspector, Baldev Raj, stopped them and after having examined the specific gravity of the milk, he gave a notice in Form VI to each one of them and also filled up the receipt forms for the purchase of the milk. They refused to accept the notice and allow him to take any sample of the milk. Dr. Gurbax Singh, who was also tried along with the petitioners and later on acquitted by the learned Magistrate, after having been given the benefit of doubt, appeared on the scene and is alleged to have helped the petitioners in offering resistance, to the Food Inspector in seizing the sample. A truck is alleged to have come near the spot at that time. The petitioners then put their Valtohas thereon and left the place along with milk. Subsequently, the Food Inspector reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran and then filed a complaint in Court. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons including Sardari Lal, Teja Singh and Amar Chand, peon of the Food Inspector.

(3.) In their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners denied the allegations made against them by the prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated. According to Gurdit Singh and Ajaib Singh, the Government Food Inspector was annoyed with them, because they had refused to give the illegal gratification to him on a monthly basis. Surjan Dass also claimed that a false case had been lodged against him. The petitioners, however, did not produce any defence evidence.