DAYAL CHAND Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl. Revision is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 3.10.1997 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal dated 21.8.1995 convicting him under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 months.

(2.) THE prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.8.88, Shri Harbhajan Singh, Govt. Food Inspector intercepted petitioner Dayal Chand in Subhash Colony, Karnal in the presence of Dr. B.S. Chaudhary and one Ghanshyam Dass, with 25 litres of cow milk in his possession in two drums. That milk was meant for sale to the public. Shri Harbhajan Singh served notice Ex. PA upon the petitioner, telling him that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors and to have the same analysed from Public Analyst, Haryana. Shri Harbhajan Singh demanded 660 mls. of cow milk from the accused. The accused supplied him 660 mls of cow milk on receipt of Rs. 3/- from him vide receipt Ex. PB. after he had stirred the whole quantity of milk and made it homogeneous. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts. He put each part in dry, clean and empty bottles. He put two drops of 40% formalin per 25 mls. in each sample bottle. He then made the sample bottles into sealed parcels in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He prepared spot memo Ex. PC. He sent one sealed bottle along with memorandum in Form No. VII to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet, through Railway parcel. He deposited the remaining sealed sample bottles along with two copies of memos in Form VII with the Local Health Authority in sealed packets. A copy of the memorandum in Form VII and specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the samples was sent separately to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh by registered post. Public Analyst, Haryana analysed the sample and gave report Ex. PD dated 18.9.88. He found the sample of cow milk adulterated inasmuch as the same was found to contain milk fat to the extent of 5.6% and milk solids not fat to the extent of 7.9%. Sample of milk was, thus, found deficient of the minimum prescribed standard so far as milk solids not fat content was concerned. Local Health Authority sent copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused/petitioner through registered post along with forwarding memo Ex. PY.

(3.) ACCUSED made an application to the court that the second part of the sample be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis. That part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory who, vide certificate Ex.PF dated 21.11.88, reported that the sample was unfit for analysis. The third part of the sample was ordered to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis which was analysed. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, vide certificate Ex. PG dated 28.2.89, found milk fat content as 5% and milk solids not fat content as 7.7%. He found the sample, thus, deficient in milk solids not fat content. In cow milk, the milk solids not fat content should be 8.5%.