BRAHMI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2006 dated 04.12.2006 vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner upheld the judgment of conviction passed against the present petitioner by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba in Criminal Case No. 302-III of 2004 whereby the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that a complaint was instituted by Food Inspector Shri M.D. Sharma against the present petitioner to the effect that on 01.03.2004, the complainant was on inspection of milk as well as milk vendors when he found accused possessing about 60 Kg. of milk in galvanized tins which was kept for the sale and consumption of general public. The complainant disclosed his identity to the accused for the purpose of inspection of galvanized tins and one witness was also called by him as he intended to lift a sample of the said milk. Accordingly, he gave a notice on Form No. VI in the presence of independent witness Pushp Nath to the accused. The complainant was duly notified as Government Food Inspector for District Chamba and was authorized to this effect vide Notification No. HFW(B) A- 2-1/82 part dated 23.09.2009. As per the prosecution, before lifting the sample, the complainant stirred the entire milk clockwise and thereafter anti-clockwise. Thus, after making the milk homogeneous, he purchased 3.5 mls. milk from the accused on payment of Rs. 10/- against receipt. The sample so purchased by the complainant was divided into three parts and poured into three clean dry bottles mixing 40 drops of formalin and thereafter each bottle of sample was labelled with a labelling slip and wrapped externally by a thick wrapping paper followed by thread. After completion of formalities, thumb impression of the accused was taken on each sample and one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Kandaghat in a sealed wooden box through registered parcel and a separate copy of Form No. VII was sent to Public Analyst by registered letter. The remaining two parts of the sample and two copies of Form No. VII were handed over to LHA, Chamba for further action. Further as per the prosecution, the sample of milk which was sent was found to be damaged as communicated vide letter No. CTL(F) 4-1(2)/2004-1690, dated 11.03.2004. Thereafter, second sample was sent through Jaram Singh and this sample was handed over against receipt at CTL, Kandaghat on 22.03.2004. The report of Public Analyst disclosed the sample of milk to be "adulterated" as it was found containing 8.24% of "milk solids-not-fat" against minimum of 9%. The report of the Public Analyst was placed before Chief Medical Officer, Chamba alongwith relevant documents, who after going through the records, accorded his written consent vide letter No. M-PW (Food)/04-100-101, dated 30.06.2004 for launching prosecution against the accused. Accused was accordingly summoned and after consideration of allegations as were contained in the complaint, as there existed a prima facie case, notice of accusation under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was put to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that against the minimum prescribed standard of 9% as shown in the report of Public Analyst Ex. PW1/M, "milk solids-not-fat" found in the sample of the complainant was 8.24% and it was held by the learned trial Court that though the difference may be insignificant, but the same cannot be ignored which was below the prescribed standard. On these basis, it was concluded by learned trial Court that the sample which was taken by the complainant from the accused was "adulterated" within the meaning of Section 2 (i)(m) of the Act. Accordingly, learned trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further conviction for a period of one month.