OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 16.12.87 at 1 PM, Shri Harbhajan Singh, Govt. Food Inspector, authorised to seize samples of foodstuff from their vendors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act), intercepted Om Parkash accused near bus stand Gharaunda in the presence of Dr. B.S. Chaudhary and Suresh Kumar son of Rulia Ram. He was carrying 70 litres of cow milk for sale to the public in three drums. At the outset, the Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused through notice Ex.PA which was expressive of intention on his part that he required sample of cow milk from him with a view to having it analysed from public analyst, Haryana. Notice Ex.PA was signed by the accused, Food Inspector and attested by the PWs. After stirring milk and homogenising it, Food Inspector took 660 mls. of milk as sample on payment of two rupees and fifty paise to him. Accused gave him receipt Ex.P8 in token of the supply of 660 mls. of cow milk to him for the purpose of analysis. Sample was divided in 3 equal parts. Each part was put in separate dry, clean and empty bottles. Formalin was added in each of bottle as preservative. Bottles were stoppered tightly and were sealed. One sealed bottle along with form VII was sent to the public analyst Haryana for analysis in a sealed packet. Other two sealed bottles along with 2 copies of memo in form VII were deposited with the local health authority the same day. Copy of memo in form VII affixed with the seal impression was sent to the public analyst separately along with the specimen impression of the seal. Public analyst, Haryana found milk solids not fat content deficient by 9% of the minimum prescribed standard as laid down in the Act. After the receipt of the report of the public analyst, copy whereof was sent to the accused along with forwarding letter calling upon him that if he wanted, he would apply for analysis of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory within 10 days of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. Complaint was instituted under sections 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Accused was summoned to face trial for offences punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

(2.) AFTER recording pre-charge evidence, the accused was charged under sections 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Accused was tried in accordance with the procedure laid down for the trial of warrant cases instituted on complaint as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) AGGRIEVED from this order passed by the learned Magistrate, convicting and sentencing him, Om Parkash accused went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.2.99 and maintained the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Magistrate.