POORAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision filed by one Pooranmal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu dated March 28, 1975, by which the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter deferred to as 'the Act'), and rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules ('the Rules' hereinafter) were maintained.

(2.) The petitioner was tried and found guilty of the aforesaid offences by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu who, upon the petitioner's conviction awarded to him one sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 on both the counts and in default, further imprisonment of 3 months.

(3.) The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on July 8, 1972, he was having milk at his shop for sale. Shri Mangilal, Food Inspector, visited his shop and purchased sample of milk for 60 p. from him vide receipt Ex. P. 1. The sample was divided into three equal parts by the Food Inspector in the presence of Motbirs and each part was filled in a dry clean bottle after adding 16 drops of formalin thereto. The bottles were properly corked and sealed by the Food Inspector in the presence of the petitioner and Motbirs. Out of these three bottles, one was given to the petitioner and the other was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and the third one was produced in the Court. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and gave his report that it was found adulterated, as fat contents therein were 4.0% and solids non-fat contents were 8.4% and as it contained about 70% of added water and abstraction of about 20% original fat. The Food Inspector, after obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the competent authority, filed a complaint in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Churu on Sept. 14, 1973, from whose court it was, later-on, transferred to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu and from there to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has now come up to this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentence.