RAMA KARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision filed by Ram Karan against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 10th Dec., 1976, upholding the judgment of Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, dated 17th Aug., 1974, by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case against Ram Karan petitioner was that he was found selling milk by Milap Chand Food Inspector near bus-stand situated outside Chaudpole Gate, Jaipur. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated. Hence he disclosed his identity to the petitioner and purchased 660 mis. of milk from the latter for 56 paisa. After purchasing the sample the Food Inspector divided it into three equal parts and filled each part in a dry, and clean bottle and added 8 drops of formalin to each bottle. Then the bottles were properly corked, wrapped an 1 fastened and sealed in accordance with Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Food Inspector prepared necessary documents in this behalf and sent one of the bottles to the Chief Public Analyst for analysis. The Chief Public Analyst analysed the same and found it adulterated in terms of standard of buffalo's milk as it contained about 10 per cent of added water. The result of his analysis was as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_33_LAWS(RAJ)2_1977.html</FRM> Upon receipt of the report of the Chief Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the Administrator Municipal Council Jaipur and, eventually, made a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3, Jaipur against the petitioner for the offence under section 71 read with 16 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3 tried the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and found him guilty thereof. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, from where the appeal was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City for disposal according to law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and dismissed the appeal upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence. The petitioner has therefore, come up in revision to this court.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court and heard Mr. P.N. Dutt for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Mathur for the State. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that only 10 or 12 drops of formalin were added to the sample of milk instead of minimum 18 as provided by the rules. According to him, the deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his contention the learned counsel invited my attention to the statements of Hot Chand P.W. 2 and Gopal P.W. 3 and contended on their strength that the Food Inspector did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules in this behalf. Mr. S.B. Mathur, on the other hand, urged on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector that there was no deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk and that the sample was not found unfit for analysis on that score. I have considered the rival contentions. Hot Chand P.W. 2 no. 1 doubt admitted in his deposition that about 15, 16 or 17 drops of formalin were added to the milk in each bottle. But he also stated that he could not say definitely about exact drops of formalin added to the sample on account of lapse of 10 years. P.W. 3 Gopal Lal also stated that approximately 10 or 12 drops of formalin were added to the milk in each bottle but he admitted that he had not counted the drops added to each bottle Hence from their evidence it 1 cannot be definitely held that the minimum quantity of formalin was not added V as a preservative in the sample of milk. Apart from this, even if there was a deviation from the Rules relating to addition of formalin to the sample of milk, I such a deviation is not fatal to the prosecution case because the Chief Public Analyst, who analysed the sample did not say in his report that the sample had become unfit for analysis for deficient addition of formalin to the sample. Shri Milap Chand Food Inspector, on the other hand, stated in clear and definite terms that the minimum quantity of formalin was added to each bottle containing the sample. His evidence finds support from the contents of form No. 6 which he prepared at the time of taking the sample and wherein he clearly wrote that 18 drops of formalin were added to each bottle. Consequently, I do not feel inclined to hold that there was any deficiency in addition of formalin to the sample of milk sent to the Chief Public Analyst for analysis.