STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BALBINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of this case.

(2.) RESPONDENT was challenged for having committed the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the prosecution case, Food Inspector K.S. Verma (PW.1) was near S.D.M. Court's Chowk at Hamirpur on 28th June, 1990 when he saw respondent No. 2 coming with Cans of milk loaded on his cycle containing about 60 Kgs. of cow's milk, then he was asked to stop. While enquiries were being made by Food Inspector (PW.1) from respondent No. 1 Balbinder Singh, Jan Mohammad respondent No. 2 appeared in the meantime. Respondent No. 1 made a statement before the Food Inspector vide Ex. PD to the effect that milk belongs to respondent No. 2, Jan Mohammed which was weighing 60 Kg. and was in 4 iron Cans loaded on the cycle. Milk had been given for carriage to Balbinder Singh -respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2, responsibility for sample etc. was that of said respondent No. 2. To the same effect, identical statement vide Ex. PE was made by Jan Mohammed, respondent No. 2 before the Food Inspector (PW.1).

(3.) AFTER disclosing his identity as well as intention to draw the sample out of the milk, Food Inspector issued notice and thereafter on payment of Rs. 3.75 to respondent No. 1, purchased 750 Mls of milk which was distributed in three parts and thereafter was put in three neat, clean and dry bottles as also formaline as preservative 20 drops each was added in all the three bottles. Thereafter the samples were stoppered, packed and then sealed as required under law. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and other two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Hamirpur.