GANESH DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANESH Dass -petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in an exhaustive and lucid judgment had adverted to every contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and repelling the same, has maintained the conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) IT is not necessary to recount the facts. The solitary argument raised with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence on the record whether the sample of milk was thoroughly stirred and the same was made homogeneous before the same was purchased by the Food Inspector. It is argued that the Food Inspector Shri C.L. Sikri is silent on the point and consequently the prosecution case must fail on that ground alone. There is no substance in this contention. Dr. S.C. Sikka PW -2 has clearly stated in the trial Court that the milk had been stirred before its sample was taken by the Food Inspector and this fact finds further corroboration from the complaint Ex. PE filed by the Food Inspector. The identical contention was raised before the appellate Court. It has been so adequately and lucidly met by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 11 of the judgment that it would be obviously wasteful and repetitive to cover the same ground over again. Affirming the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I would reject the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The revision petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.