SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 4.10.1988 at 8.00 a.m. Om Parkash, Food Inspector, who was authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors and to have them analysed from Public Analyst, Haryana, intercepted Satpal accused in Krishna Colony, Bhiwani. At that time, Satpal was carrying 10 kg. of cow milk in a drum for sale to the Public. Om Parkash disclosed his identity to the accused that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors and to have them analysed. After disclosing his identity, he served notice Ex.PA on Form No. VI indicating his intention to have sample of cow milk from him for having the same analysed. He mixed the milk thoroughly in the drum and made it homogeneous and then purchased 740 ml/gms of cow milk from him on payment of Rs. 4.50 to him. He divided that milk in 3 equal parts and put each part in a separate dry, clean and empty bottle. He added 20 drops of 40% Formalin in each part as preservative. He stoppered tightly each bottle and sealed it with the seal of Medical Officer. Bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper. Ends of paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No. BWN- C/FI-1/820 and the signatures of Local Health Authority, Bhiwani was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signature of the accused was obtained in such a manner that part of the signatures appeared on the paper slip and part on the wrapper of the bottle.

(2.) ONE sealed bottle along with Memorandum in Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana for analysis in a sealed packet through Railway parcel. Other two sealed bottles alongwith two copies of memo in Form No. VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 4.10.1988 vide No. PK/23/88 in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum in Form No. VII and specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, separately vide registered post. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found deficient in milk solids not fat content to the extent of 6% of the minimum prescribed standard. The Public Analyst thus found the sample to be adulterated. One copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent by the Local Health Authority to the accused together with a forwarding letter informing him that he could have the sample reanalyzed from the Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) ON the conclusion of the trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani found the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him and sentenced him thereunder to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month vide order dated 13/20.8.1996.