RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1985 (Rattan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh) was filed in this Court on 4/04/1985. Rattan Lal was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, under S.7 read with S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brief "the Act") by judgment and order dated 17/11/1984. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of' Rs.1,000.00. The offence found proved against him was of selling adulterated cow milk to the Food Inspector. In appeal, the conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, on March 22, 1985. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was also upheld.

(2.) The sample of milk was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst on account of the fact: that the milk fat was found to be only 2.6% which was deficient by 29% than the minimum prescribed standard. One part of the sample was also sent, as per the request of the petitioner, to the Central Food Laboratory. It was found to he adulterated, inasmuch as, it had only 2.6% fat and solids (Non-fat 6.6%). The contents of fat were found to be the same as had been found by the Public Analyst. There was, however, a difference in the result of the analysis by the two authorities in regard to milk solids non-fat. The public analyst had found the solids non-fat to be 9.6%.

(3.) The petitioner has taken several grounds in the memorandum of revision. One of the grounds is that the variation to the extent of 3.0% of milk solid non-fats in the two reports showed that the sample of milk was not a representative sample. The revision was heard in part by one of us (V. P. Bhatnagar, J.). On 28/03/1989, one of the submissions made was that after the receipt of the report from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, a fresh sanction for the prosecution was necessary to be obtained and, inasmuch as, it had not been obtained, the whole proceedings were vitiated. This question had already been referred for consideration by a larger Bench in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1986 (Meher Chand v. State). The case, therefore, was directed to be heard along with that revision petition.