SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of the present revision petition Suraj Bhan petitioner assails the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind dated 2.12.1987 and that of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind dated 6.3.1987. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Food Inspector Sher Singh and Dr. D.C. Setia were present in front of General Hospital, Jind. The petitioner came and was carrying a drum containing about 20 kilograms of milk for sale. The petitioner disclosed his name as Chander Bhan son of Ram Kishan. A sample of milk was taken after complying with the statutory formalities. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. It was found to be adulterated with milk fat and milk solids not fat 5% and 13% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. A complaint was filed. During the trial the prosecution examined five witnesses while the defence of the petitioner was that the sample had been seized from somebody else and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate believed the prosecution version and held that it has been established that it was the petitioner who was carrying adulterated milk. With these findings, the impugned judgment was pronounced negativing the contentions of the petitioner.

(3.) THE revision petition was filed in the year 1987. When it was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Since it was pertaining to an incident of the year 1982, it was unnecessary again to list the matter for hearing. In these circumstances, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the petitioner's counsel who has not cared to appear.