Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 1167 (ALL)

Hoti Lal v. State of U. P

1980-12-03

J.P.CHATURVEDI

body1980
JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, dismissing an appeal of the applicant Hoti Lal and upholding his conviction for an offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He, however, reduced the sentence to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he awarded a further sentence of R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 31-7-1975 Nathi Lal, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the applicant Hoti Lal, situate at Dhauli Mathura, and found him selling and exposing for sale 10 Kgms. of milk at his shop. After giving a notice in form No. 6, the Food Inspector purchased 660 milk litres of milk for analysis from the applicant. The sample was divided into three parts and formalin was added to each of the three parts. One of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was adulterated being deficient in fatty solids by 50% and non-fatty solid by 24%. After obtaining the consent of the Medical Officer of Health, the Food Inspector made a complaint. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He stated that the milk was meant for private use and not for sale. 4. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, Hoti Lal, who deposed that he after giving notice in form No. 6 purchased the sample milk from the shop of the applicant and that on analysis the same was found to be adulterated. In support of his contention the applicant examined Mithlesh Kumar (D.W.1), who stated that the milk was meant for personal use of the applicant. 5. The trial court disbelieved the statement of Mithlesh Kumar (D.W. 1) and on the basis of the testimony of Nathi Lal convicted and sentenced the applicant, as already stated. The appellate court agreed with the trial court. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that there was no compliance of the provisions of sub-sections (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under that provision the Food Inspector is required to call at least one witness to witness the sale. The appellate court agreed with the trial court. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that there was no compliance of the provisions of sub-sections (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under that provision the Food Inspector is required to call at least one witness to witness the sale. In the present case Nathi Lal (P.W. 1) stated that several persons collected at the shop and that he asked every one of them to become witness to the purchase of milk for analysis and that all of them refused to become witness. In the circumstances, the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10 have been duly complied with. 7. It was next contended that milk at the shop was meant for his personal use. The definition of sale in clause 13 includes sale for analysis. The Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Dass Raghu Ji v. State of Maharashtra (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 128) : 1976 (1) FAC 43 also held that the sale for analysis was the sale within the definition of sale given in clause 13 of Section 2. In these circumstances, therefore, even if the milk was meant for personal use, it was a sale within the meaning of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the applicant committed an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Act. 8. Lastly, it was contended that the punishment awarded to the applicant was severe. The applicant is a petty shop keeper in the outskirts of the town. No doubt, it was his second offence, but there is no minimum sentence prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the second offence. The ends of the justice will, therefore, be served if the applicant is awarded the minimum sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.L for three months. 9. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is affirmed, but the substantive sentence of one year's R.I. is reduced to six months R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is, however, maintained. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo further R. I. for three months. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is affirmed, but the substantive sentence of one year's R.I. is reduced to six months R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is, however, maintained. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo further R. I. for three months. The applicant is on bail, to which he shall surrender to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The stay order dated 24-7-80 is vacated.