MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Y. R. MEENA, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgement of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 11. 3. 81 by which he convicted and sentenced accused petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, though he reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from six months to three months and fine from Rs. 1000/- to 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment. Relevant facts are that on 23. 6. 76, Food Inspector Pushti Ballabh Pandey took sample of milk by purchasing 650 ml. milk from the accused petitioner. The sample was taken in three bottles. It was sealed and sent to Public Analyst and as per the report of the Analyst is was found as follows :- 1. Fat content 4. 3% 2. Solids non-fat 4. 6. % 3. Test for Starch Positive 4. Test for cane sugar Negative 5. Starch present 0. 6%

(2.) THE report further reveals that milk contained 45% added water and also 0. 6% stretch. Permission was obtained for initiating the Criminal action against the accused petitioner. Statements of Pushti Ballabh Pandey were recorded by the Magistrate. Accused was charged under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. Accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In trial, Prosecution examined two witnesses. Accused in his statement denied of having committed any offence. After considering the evidence on record and statements of the prosecution witnesses, Magistrate was of the view that accused had committed the offence and held him liable for punishment under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. He convicted the accused and sentenced him six month's R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Accused carried the matter in appeal before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara.