NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Nov. 2, 1982 at about 8.30 a.m. in Indra Gandhi Nagar at Kota P.W. 1 Laxmi Chand Jain, the then Food Inspector. Kota, noticed Nand Kishore petitioner selling goat-milk from a 'Chari' (milk can) on his bicycle. After giving the requisite notice to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 M.L. of goat-milk for Rs. 1.65 from the petitioner, prepared three samples therefrom, packed and sealed them according to the rules and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Kota for analysis. The rest of the two samples were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. On analysis of the milk the Public Analyst found milk fat contents at 1.6% and Milk Solids non-fat contents at 5.14% as against the standard of 3.0% and 8.5% respectively prescribed for Rajasthan in the table below item No. A. 11. 01. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules). He, therefore, opined that the sample of cow milk was adulterated by reason of its contained about 40% of added water and abstraction of about 24% of original water. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector sent a copy thereof to the petitioner and after obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecuting the petitioner from the Local (Health) Authority filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota on 11-10-83. On 22-11-83 the petitioner, in exercise of his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), required the learned Magistrate to get the other sample of the milk analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad (U. P.). The learned Magistrate called for the second sample from the Local (Health) Authority and after examining the seals and packing thereof and finding them intact sent the same to the Director. The Director, on analysis, found milk fat contents at 1.5% and milk solids non-fat at 5.2% and reported that the ample milk did not conform to the standard of goat milk prescribed for Rajasthan. On 27-8-84 the learned Magistrate informed the petitioner of the result of the analysis of milk by the Director and commenced the trial of the petitioner. On trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 7(1) of the Act, convicted him as such and sentenced him under Section 16(1) of the Act to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota, partly accepting the appeal of the petitioner, reduced the sentence of imprisonment and fine to the minimum prescribed i.e. six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C. before this Court.

(2.) With the help of a catena of case-law, to be referred to and discussed shortly, Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the trial of the petitioner stood vitiated by non-compliance of Rr. 17 and 18 of the Rules as also by not putting the report of the Director to the petitioner in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. In the end as also in the alternative, Mr. Bagri prayed for release of the petitioner on probation in view of his being aged 17 years only at the time of commission of the offence and his facing the ordeal of a long trial.

(3.) The facts of the case, as narrated above, were not disputed before me. On examining the record of the two Courts below I have felt satisfied that the sworn testimonies of PW 1 Laxmi Chand Jain, Food Inspector and PW 2 Ram Charan, an independent witness were quite trustworthy and reliable and fully established the narrated facts. There are, therefore, no good reasons for this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of facts, as recorded by the two Courts below. Therefore, subject to the answer to the questions raised by Mr. Bagri, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sections 7/16 of the Act, have to be upheld.