CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'Act'). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 29.10.1999 in P.F.A. Act case No. 2 -III of 1994 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1999 decided on 9.4.2002, learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 28.2.1994 at about 1.45 p.m. at Barru, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, PW -1 K.S. Verma, Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and serving a notice on petitioner purchased 750 mls. cow boiled milk for the purpose of analysis on payment of Rs. 6/ -, which on analysis by Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as per minimum prescribed standard under the Act. The Food Inspector obtained written consent from the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur and thereafter filed complaint in the Court. The notice of accusation under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Act was put to accused to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined four witnesses. The statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he examined DW -1 Shankar Singh in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted and sentenced the petitioner which was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, as noticed above, hence this revision.

(3.) THE two courts below have convicted the petitioner on the ground that Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated as the contents of the sample were found deficient in milk fat by 10% and in milk solid not fat by 12%. In written consent Ex.PW -3/A, it has been stated that the contents of the sample are deficient in milk not solid by 12 percent of the minimum prescribed standard. In Ex.PW -3/A, it has not been stated that the sample was found deficient in milk fat. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 18 of the judgment has noticed Public Analyst report Ex.PW -1/H and has observed that in Ex.PW -1/H the milk was found deficient in milk fat by 10% and in milk solid not fat by 12% of the minimum prescribed standard.