VED PARKASH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The Government Food Inspector intercepted the petitioner on 7.8. 1984, at 6.30 P.M., at Jind and found in his possession about 20 Kilograms of cow's milk for sale. The Government Food Inspector took samples of the milk in the prescribed manner. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst indicating that milk solids not fat were deficient by 8 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard, the Food Inspector preferred a complaint against the petitioner. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner were maintained in appeal.

(2.) The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Food Inspector nowhere mentioned in his complaint that milk had been stirred in order to make it a homogeneous mixture. The importance of stirring the milk is well known. It is an acknowledged fact that if milk is not stirred properly, facts accumulate at the top. At the time of the taking of the sample, stirring of the milk makes it homogeneous and whichever part of the milk is then taken, is representative of the bulk. Though non-mentioning of such a fact in the complaint is not fatal to the maintainability of the complaint, but this fact tells on the credibility of the evidence of the Food Inspector, even though he may assert at the trial that he did stir the milk. Here, in the instant case, the Government Food Inspector, Moti Ram, maintained that he did stir the milk but since he did not mention this facts in the complaint, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner on the testimony of the Government Food Inspector. Such a course was adopted by this Court in The State of Punjab Vs. Jagan Nath, 1986(2) Punjab Law Reporter 464 , Tara Chand Vs. The State of Haryana, 1985 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 393 , and Har Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 1988 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 666. There are other decisions of this Court as well which need not be cited here to avoid burdening of the judgment.

(3.) In parity with the view taken in the aforesaid cases, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him. Petition allowed