JAY NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is a revision petition preferred by petitioner accused Jay Narayan who was convicted for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate). Sojat vide his judgment dated 12-8-1998. He was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for adulteration of mixed milk and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for not having licence and thus contravened Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). Both are punishable under Section 16 of the Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts are that on 23-10-1988 Mohanlal Purohit, Food Inspector, Sojat checked the petitioner accused who was carrying two drums of mixed milk on his motorcycle No. RSL-216. One of the drums contained 25 Kg. while the other contained 40 Kg. of milk. The petitioner was not having a licence. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of mixed milk from the accused petitioner, paid him Rs. 3/- and obtained receipt. A notice in form No. 6 was given to the accused petitioner which bears the signature of the petitioner. The receipt also bears signature of the petitioner accused. The inspector then divided the sample in three parts, poured in three bottles and added formaline. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst who gave report Ex. P/5 according to which the sample contained 3.9% milk fat and milk solids not fat 6.5%. It contained about 23% of added water. Then the Food Inspector obtained sanction from the local authority and filed complaint before the Magistrate concerned. After appearance of the petitioner, Mohan Lal PW-1 was examined. Then the charge was framed against the petitioner on 8-3-1995. He pleaded not guilty. Thereafter Food Inspector was further cross examined. Ali Ahmed PW-2 was examined as a remaining witness. The petitioner got the sample examined from the Central Food Laboratory whose report Ex. P/8 is on record, according to which the sample contained 2% milk fat and 6.9% milk solids not fat. The sample was adulterated. Learned Magistrate examined the accused petitioner under Section 313, Cr. P.C. He did not produce any evidence in defence. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties. convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated above. The petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat which has been dismissed on 21-8-1999. Hence this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record.