DALBIR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. The appellant was convicted by the learned trial for selling the adulterated buffaloe 'smilk and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. The learned Sessions Judge in criminal appeal No. 31 of 1999, on 23.3.2002, maintained his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act '), but reduced his sentence to six months simple imprisonment from one year rigours imprisonment and maintained the fine. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision petition being wrong and illegal.

(2.) IN short, the facts are that in the year 1995 Shri B.S. Sidhu was Food Inspector, posted at Chamba. On 15.3.1995, in the morning at about 8 a.m., he found the petitioner selling the buffaloe 'smilk at the place known as "pucca tala ' located within Chamba Town. At that time, he was having 9 liters of buffaloes milk in an iron can of 15 liters. According to the Food Inspector in the presence of Home Guard Constable PW -2 Inder Singh and shopkeeper PW -3 Sunil Kumar purchased 7.50 ml. of buffaloe 'smilk for analysis from the petitioner after stirring. He made the payment Rs. 3.75/ -. The milk purchased by him was divided in to three equal parts, thereafter put in three dry clean and empty bottles. 20 drops of formalien were added in each bottles as preservative. Each sample bottles were closed air tight and wrapped in a thick paper with gum. The paper slips having impression CHA -1187 were pasted on each bottle and thereafter sample bottles were sealed with a seal in accordance with the Rules. The accused and witnesses had also signed each of the samples. One part of sample along with Form No. VII was sent through registered parcel to the public analyst Kandaghat for its analysis. One copy of Form No. VII and seal impression were separately sent through registered post to the public analyst. The remaining two bottles along with two copies of Form No. VII and the seal impression were deposited with Local (Health) Authority, Chamba.

(3.) ON the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, petitioner was summoned for the offence aforesaid. Accordingly, the notice of accusation under the said Section was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant Food Inspector besides examining himself produced his witnesses and after closure of the prosecution evidence, petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor and no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, learned trial court while relying upon the evidence on the prosecution convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as aforesaid. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as such he filed the instant criminal revision petition. Shri Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that from the evidence on record it is apparent that the Food Inspector did not churn and stir the milk while taking the samples thus, the milk sample sent for analysis was not of a representative character and no reliance can be put on the report of the Public Analyst. Further that there was also noncompliance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act, which vitiates the trial.