JUDGMENT
K.C. Gupta, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment
dated 12.12.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal vide which appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Karnal dated 17.5.1989 was
maintained, vide which the petitioner was found guilty
under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
2. Briefly (SIC)
on 23.2.1981, PW-1 Kali Ram, Government Food Inspector in
the presence of Dr. Om Pal, Medical Officer and Amrik Singh
son of Sucha Singh, intercepted the petitioner at about
7.00 P.M. He was found in his possession 12 kilograms of
Cows’ milk for public sale, contained in a drum. Kali
Ram, Government Food Inspector disclosed his identify and
expressed his desire to take sample of the milk for
analysis. Thereafter he gave notice Ex.PA in Form No. VI
and purchased 660 mls. of Cows’ milk after mixing the
whole contents properly against payment of Rs. 1.50 paise
vide receipt Ex.PB. The milk so purchased was divided
into three equal parts and was put in three dry and
clean bottles, which were duly sealed in accordance with
Rules. One of the sealed bottle alongwith memo in Form
No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, while
the other two bottles alongwith two memorandums in Form
No. VIII were deposited with the Local Health Authority,
Karnal. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst,
the sample was found to be deficient to the extent of 40%
in milk fat of the minimum prescribed standard.
Consequently, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst
was sent to the petitioner by the Local Health Authority.
3. After the completion of the necessary
formalities, the complaint was filed in the Court.
4. After the appearance of the petitioner, the
Food Inspector examined himself for the purpose of
pre-charge evidence. After having found a prima-facie
case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section
16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on
26.7.1988, to which be pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. After framing of the charge, the petitioner
further cross-examined PW-1 Kali Ram. The complainant
further examined PW-2 Dr. Om Pal and PW-3 Baldev Raj, Head
Clerk.
5. After the close of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied
the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false
implication. He also stated that the milk was not meant
for sale, but he was taking it to the hospital for a heart
patient. In defence, he examined four witnesses.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
complainant and the learned defence counsel, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Karnal found the petitioner guilty
vide his judgment dated 17.5.1989 and sentenced him vide
order of the same date as stated above.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgment dated
12.12.1991.
8. Still dis-satisfied, the accused has filed the
present revision.
9. I have heard Shri Shalu Bali, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Shri Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for
the State and carefully gone through the record.
10. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that there is no evidence on file that the Food Inspector
before taking the sample had stirred the milk in
accordance with the Rules, but he simply stated that the
milk was stirred and was made homogeneous before taking
the sample. However, he had not stated that he had
stirred the milk with a clean stick or the milk
measurement and that too in a clockwise and anti-clockwise
in such a way that milk at the bottom was thoroughly
mixed. He further contended that the milk was not
properly stirred and was not made homogenous in the
manner stated above, so the report of the Public Analyst
was defective and the petitioner was entitled to be
acquitted. For this contention, he placed reliance on an
authority of this Court Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana,
1997 (2) Recent CR 462, which supported the above
contention of the learned counsel. There is also another
authority on the same point, i.e., State of Punjab v.
Inder Singh, 1984 (1) FAC 166.
11. In view of the above mentioned authorities, it
is held that the milk was not properly stirred and the
report of the Public Analyst cannot be relied upon to hold
that the sample was found to be adulterated.
Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the
judgments of the Courts below are set-aside and the
petitioner is acquitted.