YOG RAJ Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1997 whereby the said criminal appeal filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 17th January, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una in case No. 69-III of 1992 has been dismissed and the conviction as well as sentence against the petitioners has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge exercising his appellate jurisdiction.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted for committing offence punishable under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (1954 Act for short) and consequent upon his conviction under the aforesaid offence by the trial Magistrate was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The said prosecution of the petitioner had arisen out of the charge against him that the milk which he was selling was adulterated. It was on 8th May, 1992 at about 9.30 a.m. that the Food Inspector after purchase from the petitioner took the sample of the milk, divided it into three equal parts and put these three equal parts of milk into three bottles which were properly corked, labeled and sealed. After observing all the requisite formalities and the preparation of the Panchnama, one part of the sample of milk contained in one such bottle in a sealed packet was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh whose report was received through the Local Health Authority, Una. This report of the Public Analyst had found that the milk contained in the said sample was adulterated. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the milk sample contained milk fat 3.1 % and milk-solids-not- fat 4.7%. As per the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample was deficient in milk fat by 11.0% and in milk-solids-not-fat by 45.0% of the minimum prescribed standards.

(3.) During the course of the proceedings of the trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate the petitioner moved an application with a prayer for sending the second part of the sample for analysis from Central Food Laboratory (CFL) but even though his said application was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate, on the same being allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, the second part of the sample was sent to CFL. Director CFL sent communication No. FT AQCL "PFA(405)/95 dated 18th December, 1995 addressed to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una whereby and where along the report of CFL was sent, the same being Certified No. 405/PFA/95. This report dated 18th December, 1995 was duly received in the trial Court on 26th December, 1995 i.e. much before the conclusion in the trial Court on 26th December, 1995, i.e. much before the conclusion of the trial. As per this report of CFL, the sample contained milk fat, 3.0% and milk-solid-not-fat 5.4%. In the opinion of the CFL the sample did not conform to the standards laid down for cow's milk inas much as the milk-fat contents fell below the minimum requirement of 3.5% and milk-solid-not-fat contents fell below the minimum requirement of 8.5%.