KHAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 28, 1968 P. W. 1 Balrai Singh, Food Inspector, Ajmer after issuing requisite notice (Ex. P. 1) purchased at Ajmer 12 'chhatanks' of cow-milk from Khaju Gujar, resident of Kalyanipura in lieu of 60 P. for the purpose of analysis. The milk was divided into 3 equal parts, each of which was kept in a bottle, which was duly sealed. ONe of the samples was given to the accused Khaju and a receipt thereof Ex. P. 2. was obtained from him. The other sample was kept by the Food Inspector and the third one was sent with a memorandum Ex. P. 4 to the Public Analyst, Ajmer, for ascertainment of chemical elements. The sample reached the hands of the Public Analyst on February 28, 1968. He at first compared the seal on the container of the sample with the specimen impression received by him separately and found the seal on the bottle identical and intact. Thereafter he analysed the sample and certified the result as under - 1. Fat content 5. 2%

(2.) SOLID non fat content 7. 56% In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample did not conform to the standard of purity prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 due to low percentage of solid non fat contents. The Analyst found that the sample contained 11% of added water. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Local Body a complaint was made in. the court of the Municipal Magistrate, Ajmer. The accused was charged by the trying Magistrate under sec. 16 read with sec 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. The Sub-divisional Magistrate did not rest content with the admission of the guilt and proceeded with the trial of the accused Khaju He examined P. W. 1 Balraj Singh. In his statement, recorded under sec. 342, Cr. P. C , the accused denied to have committed the offence he produced Girdharilal, D. W. 1, who stated that the accused was a cultivator and that he did not see him selling milk The trial court, relying upon the testimony of P. W. 1, convicted the accused Khaju under sec. 16, read with sec. 7 of the Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The accused took an appeal against the above verdict in the court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who maintained the appellant's conviction, but reduced the sentence to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer two months' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. Dissatified with the above judgment, Khaju has preferred this revision application. Learned counsel for the accused raised, in the course of his arguments, the following three points - (1) that the trial court went wrong in holding that Khaju was a milk-vendor; (2) that the prosecution did not examine the 'motbirs' in whose presence sample of milk was obtained from the accused and that it was improper on the part of the learned Magistrate to base conviction solely on the statement of the Food Inspector Balraj Singh, P. W. 1 ; (3) that if the conviction of the accused is some how maintained, the sentence imposed on him deserves reduction as the milk contained 5. 2% fat content, which is more than the prescribed limit.