BUDHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Sec. 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. He preferred an appeal against his aforesaid conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide his order dated 16th July, 1982. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Sec. 397 Cr. P.C. to seek the quashing of his conviction and sentence.

(2.) The charge against the petitioner was founded on the allegations that on 19th Jan., 1980 he had sold a sample of cow's milk to the Food Inspector for the purposes of analysis and that on being analysed, the said sample was found adulterated.

(3.) The short contention raised by Shri Kapil Dev Sood, learnod counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case is that the report of the Public Analyst produced in this case and which has been used by the courts below in holding the sample of milk as adulterated, does not pertain to the sample taken from the petitioner and on this short ground the conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable and must be quashed. In support of this contention, he drew my attention to form VII found at Ex. PD vide which the sample of milk taken from the petitioner was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst, as also the report of the Public Analyst found at Ex. PE A bare look at the form Ex. PD would show that the sample which had been forwarded by the Food Inspector and which purported to have been taken by the present petitioner on 19-1-1980 was assigned serial No. K-l/80 by the Food Inspector. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PE, however, pertains to the sample of cow's milk taken from Budhi Ram petitioner on 19-1-1980 but with serial No. K-2/80. It is thus obvious whereas the sample which was sent by the Food Inspector for analysis was bearing serial No K-l/80, the report of the Public Analyst pertains to another sample which was assigned serial No. K-2/80. It appears that on the same day and at the same time the Food Inspector had taken two samples from the petitioner one of which was assigned serial No. K-l/80 and the other serial No. K-2/80. The present case, of course, relates to serial No. K-l/80 as it was this sample which was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis vide form Ex. PD. Since the report of the Public Analyst found at Ex. PD docs not relate to this sample, it cannot be said that the sample taken from the petitioner and sent to the Public Analyst vide Ex. PD was adulterated.