BAIURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, upholding the conviction of the accused petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Mangilal, Food Inspector PW 1 was on his normal routine check up of the milk vendors on 20-9-67 and at about 7.05 P. M. near the hotel of one Dungarmal in Churu, he saw that the accused petitioner was carrying a drum which contained about 10 kgs of buffalo milk for being sold. He demanded of the accused his license if any to vend milk but he was unable to produce any. Shri Mangilal purchased 660 ml. milk from the accused petitioner and paid its price. He divided the milk in three parts and each part was filled in a separate phial which was wrapped and sealed. Before wrapping and sealing, he added the requisite quantity of formalin as preservative to the samples. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the Public Analyst in his report Ex. P 5 dated 24-10-67 found that fat content were only 4,0% and solid non fats were 9.50%. In the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample of buffalo milk was adulterated by reason of abstraction of about 20% of original fat. After obtaining the consent to prosecute of the competent authority, the Food Inspector filed a challan against the accused petitioner and the learned Magistrate tried the accused of the charge levelled against him. The accused came out with a plea that the milk was not meant for being sold and he had purchased it for domestic consumption, He admitted that sample was taken. He examined as many as four witnesses in defence. The learned Magistrate held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and as already stated earlier, his conviction and sentences were upheld in appeal.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner that the milk was not buffalo milk and that it was not meant for sale but neither of these contentions has any force. While sitting in revision, a finding of fact arrived at by a court can only be disturbed if it is perverse or is such as no reasonable man can arrive at on the material on record. It is the finding of both the courts below that the milk was meant for sale and it was buffalo milk. There was sufficient material on record to reach this finding which can be said to be reasonable finding on the material on record A look at Ex. P 1 from No. VI will show that it was buffalo milk which was taken from the possession of the accused petitioner. Mangilal PW 1 who is the Food Inspector has clearly stated that at the time sample was taken from the accused petitioner, the accused petitioner did not give out that it was cow milk. It has also come in his statement that the accused gave cut that the milk is meant for sale and he did not come out with a plea that it was meant for Pooran Nai. A look at item A-11.01 of Appendix I to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1959 will show that in Rajasthan, the buffalo milk must contain minimum 5% of milk fat and 9% milk solid non fat. If any of the two constituents, namely, milk fat or solid non fat is less than the stipulated standard, that article of food is adulterated within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Act.