DEVI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged by Mr. Grover to challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is that nowhere in the complaint has the Food Inspector mentioned that the sample of cow's milk was taken from the petitioner after stirring the milk in order to make a homogeneous mixture and the omission in the complaint supplied in evidence of the Food Inspector is not safe to be relied upon to maintain the conviction. This argument has prevailed in a number of cases in the Court. For reference, see Crl. Revision No. 1073 of 1985 (Rattan Chand V/s. The State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) and Crl. Revision No. 1082 of 1985 (Munshi Ram V/s. State of Punjab) decided on 28.2.1989.

(2.) On the party of reasoning given in Rattan Chand's and Munshi Ram's Cases , this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.