LAWS(HPH)-2003-7-7

MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On July 28, 2003
MOHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13th October, 1993, Food Inspector, Sh. S. C. Joshi, intercepted accused Mohan Lal selling mixed milk. Mohan Lal had kept the milk for sale in two iron buckets. Each of the buckets contained about six liters of milk. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, expressed his intention to purchase 750 milliliters of milk, for the purpose of analysis. He accordingly issued a notice to the accused. Food Inspector purchased 750 milliliters of mixed milk on payment of Rs. 3.75 paise for the purpose of analysis. Before lifting the sample, the milk was stirred to make it homogeneous and thereafter poured into three neat, clean and dry bottles. In each of the bottles, 20 drops of formalin were added as preservative. The samples were corked, wrapped and sealed. Codal formalities were completed. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat. Public Analyst, Kandaghat by his report dated 17th November, 1993 (Ex. P6) found that the sample of the milk deficient in milk fat and milk solid is not fat. Milk fat content was 2.8% against the minimum prescribed standard of 4.5% and milk solids not fat were 4.2% against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5% for the mixed milk. The Food Inspector after obtaining necessary sanction. under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act for short), filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. Learned trial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28-7-1999 convicted accused Mohan Lal for offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Aggrieved, accused carried an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment dated 26-8-2000.

(3.) Still not reconciled, accused had filed the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.