CHHAJU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION -petitioner-Chhajju Ram was convicted for having committed an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, by his judgment dated 11.11.1986.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on 16.8.1980 the then Government Food Inspector, Ambala, alongwith Dr. S.P. Singh Bhatia, Medical Officer (Incharge Civil Hospital, Kalka) visited the halwai-shop of petitioner-Chhajju Ram, who had 5 Kgs of boiled cow's milk in a Patila for sale to public. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls of the said milk on payment of the price under receipt Ex.PB. The sample was taken after thoroughly stirring the milk and making it homogeneous, divided into three equal parts, put into three dry, clean bottles and formalin was added to the samples as preservative. The bottles were duly wrapped and sealed. Sample was taken in the presence of an independent witness by name Narrottam Singh. One of the samples was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, at Chandigarh, whose report Ex.PD showed that sample was not in accordance with the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as the same was found to contain milk fat 35% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. It is on this basis the complaint-Ex.PE was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, by the Food Inspector. The petitioner applied to the Court for getting the second sample tested from the Director of Central Forensic Laboratory, who after analysis sent his report Ex.PE finding that the sample did not conform to the standard laid down under the Rules, as the milk fat was found 2.9% i.e. muchless than the minimum prescribed standard.

(3.) THEREFORE , the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition. Before me also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused raised the plea that the milk was not stirred properly and made homogeneous before the sample was taken and, therefore, the petitioner/accused is entitled to acquittal. But this being purely a question of fact and both the trial Court and the Appellate Court having held against the petitioner/accused on this ground and there being no infirmity or illegality in this finding of fact, I am not inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner/accused. As is seen from the record, the complaint Ex.PE shows that the milk was stirred, as pointed out by the trial Court. The Food Inspector and the Medical Officer who accompanied him have also deposed to that effect and the finding of Courts below is that there was no reason for disbelieving them. Of course the independent witness Narrottam Singh had deposed that the milk was not stirred, but he being a graduate there was absolutely no reason for him to attest the relevant documents if really the milk was not stirred. Therefore, he has been rightly disbelieved.