MANJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application -in -revision filed by Manji through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated 27th July, 1977, by which his conviction and sentence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred -to as the Act, were upheld and maintained. It will not be out of place to mention that Manji was tried for the offence of selling adulterated milk of she buffalo and found guilty thereof by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Banswara who, on his conviction, sentenced him to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution care against Manji petitioner was as follows : On 15th February, 1974, Gauri Shanker, Food Inspector, Banswara, inspected the milk of the petitioner at about 7p.m. on Mala Road in front of the hotel of Ram Bilas. Before incepecting the milk the Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the petitioner and expressed his desire to purchase a sample of the milk. The Food Inspector asked the petitioner to produce his licence for selling milk. The petitioner replied that he was the servant of one Ibrabim and was carrying the latter's milk for sale The Food Inspector then purchased 660 M.Ls. of milk for Re 1/ -, from the petitioner and gave him a receipt therefor. The sample of milk was divided into three equal parts and each part was filled in a dry clean bottle. The bottles were corked, sealed and labelled in the presence of Motbirs after adding 16 drops of formalin to the contents of each of them. One of the bottles containing the sample of buffalo milk was given to Manji vide receipt Ex. P.1 and the other bottle was sent to the Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan Jaipur, for analysis. A speciman impression of the seal used to seal the bottle of the sample was sent separately to the Analyst by registered post. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and declared the result of his analysis as follows:

(3.) THE revision petition was admitted by this Court on 3rd October, 1977 and the notice of the date, time and place when the revision -petition will be heard was given to the Public Prosecutor and to the petitioner. The petitioner has not appeared despite service of notice. As there was no counsel from his side to represent him in this revision -petition, Mr. B. Advani was appointed under the Legal Aid -Programme to argue the revision -petition on his behalf. Mr. B Advani agreed to represent the petitioner without demanding any fees in the case.