MOHAN DATT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is directed against the order in appeal of the learned Sessions Judge, dated March 12, 1985, whereby the appeal of the revisionist Mohan Datt (hereinafter called as the accused) against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, dated October 3, 1983, was dismissed with the modification that the substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to six months under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the aforesaid order had convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for three months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on March 23, 1982, at about 9 a.m. when the Food Inspector, D.N. Kaushik was it Shogi in connection with his official duties, he found the accused in possession of about 6 kgs. of cow's milk meant for public sale. The laid Food Inspector then after disclosing his identities served a notice upon the accused calling upon him to sell 660 mls. of milk, which was declared by the accused as that of cow, for the purposes of sampling and analysis. He accordingly took the milk from him on payment of price against a receipt and put the same into three clean and dry settles in equal quantities and while doing so, observed the requisite codal formalities with regard to adding of preservative, proper stoppering, wrapping and sealing etc. Out of the three sample bottles so prepared, the Food Inspector sent one sample to the Public Analyst at Chandigarh, while the remaining two were sent to the Local (Health) Authority in accordance with the rules and procedure. The Public Analyst at Chandigarh then reported the results vide report Ex. PE, dated April 26, 1982 to the effect that the sample milk was adulterated as it was deficient in milk solids not fat by 7.0%.

(3.) On receipt of this report the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against the accused in the court, the intimation whereof was also duly given to the Local (Health) Authority. The Local (Health) Authority then in compliance with the ruler and the procedure sent a copy of that report to the accused and also intimated him that he could get one of the sample bottles kept with the Local (Health) Authority tested by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, if he so desired, by applying to the Court concerned in this behalf within a period of ten days of the receipt of the intimation. The accused opted to exercise his right to get the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The Director of Central Food Laboratory then vide his certificate dated September 13, 1982, also found that the sample milk was adulterated since it was deficient in milk solids not fat by 1.3% of the minimum prescribed standard. The trial Court on the receipt of this report proceeded to try the case for the aforesaid offence and found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as stated earlier.