PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prefers this Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Una, dated 3 -7 -1986 in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1985. By this decision, the judgment of conviction imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, vide judgment dated 10 -1 -1985, convicting the petitioner under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months, was confirmed. The petitioner assails this judgment before this Court.

(2.) The prosecution version, in brief, is that the petitioner was intercepted while carrying 52 Kgs of mixed milk for sale on 30 -3 -1982 by Prem Kanwar, Food Inspector, near the shops in village Basal. Notice (Ex. P -l) was given to the petitioner by the Food Inspector intending thereby to take sample of the milk then in possession of the petitioner. Consequently, 660 mis. of mixed milk was purchased after stirring the same in the container for the purpose of analysis. As required under the Act and the Rules, the milk was divided into three equal parts and each part was put into a clean and dry bottle. Formalin -18 drops was added to each part of the sample as preservative. All the samples in the bottles were stoppered, wrapped, sealed and labelled in accordance with the Rules. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and copy of Form -VII alongwith specimen impressions of the seals wore sent to the Public Analyst through separate cover. On analysis, the Public Analyst, vide report dated 15 -5 -1982, opined that the contents of the milk were deficient in milk fat by 4% and in milk solids -not -fat by 21% than the minimum prescribed standard and, therefore, adulterated. The appellant was served with notice by the Local Health Authority as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the case was initiated against the accused.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner appears to be that he is not a milk vendor by profession and the milk sold by him to the Food Inspector was cows milk although in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted the sale of milk to the Food Inspector but stated that the sample of milk was not put into clean and dry bottles. He exercised his right, under the law, to get the second part of the sample analysed which was found decomposed and when the third part was sent, the bottle was found broken with the result that the report of the Public Analyst could not be superseded by any other report from the Central Health Authority. Ultimately, the contention of the prosecution prevailed with the trying Magistrate and the petitioner was convicted as aforesaid and the same was maintained by the Sessions Judge on appeal.