PARDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated January 31st, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 12, 1989 passed by Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana convicting the revisionist -accused under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Food Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation, was upheld.

(2.) ON May 27th, 1993, Food Inspector along with Doctor C.D. Sharma, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre (Government Hospital), Gohana intercepted the revisionist -accused near State Bank of Patiala in Gohana. He was carrying 10 kgs cow milk in a bucket for public sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls milk for analysis after serving notice upon the accused on payment of Rs. 3.75 paise vide receipt (Exhibit PB). The milk purchased was divided and poured in three clean and dry bottles in equal parts. The bottles were stoppered, labelled, squarely fastened in strong and thick paper separately in accordance with the prescribed procedure. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana Karnal in accordance with the rules. The Public Analyst vide his report (Exhibit PH) opined that the contents of the sample were deficient in milk solid not fat by 1.5 per cent, that is, milk solid not fat was found 7 per cent against the prescribed standard of 8.5 per cent. The milk was found adulterated.

(3.) THE important point of law involved in the present revision is as to whether less than the minimum prescribed sentence should be awarded to the vendor where the milk is found to be adulterated and he was convicted.