TEJ RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case is brief is that on 25.7.1985 Shri Amar Nath Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector intercepted accused at bus-stand, Naraingarh. At that time, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Medical Officer, was also with him. Accused was carrying with him 90 litres of cow milk in three drums. That milk was meant for sale to the public. Shri Amar Nath Sharma gave his identity to the accused that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize sample of the foodstuff which was meant for sale to the public from their vendors and to have the same analysed from the Public Analyst. After serving notice Ex.PA on the accused, he got the milk thoroughly mixed and made homogeneous. He purchased 660 mls. of milk from the accused on payment of Rs. 2/- to him vide receipt Ex.PB. He divided that milk into three equal parts and put each of those parts in dry and clean bottle. 18 drops of formalin were added in each of sample bottle as preservative. Bottles were labelled, stoppered and securely fastened and wrapped in strong thick paper which was secured by means of a strong twine. Bottles were made into sealed parcels in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for drawing sample for getting it analysed. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in sealed cover. A copy of form VII alongwith the railway receipt was also despatched to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh separately by registered post. Remaining two sample bottles alongwith copy of memo form No. VII was deposited with the Local Health Authority in a sealed cover.

(2.) PUBLIC Analyst found the sample to be deficient in milk fact content to the extent of 47.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. After receipt of the report of Public Analyst complaint was filed against the accused under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) STILL not satisfied, Tej Ram-accused (petitioner herein) has come in revision to this Court.