Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 526 (PNJ)

Matroo v. State of Haryana

2000-05-16

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Matroo (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, dated 7.1.1988. The petitioner was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(b)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on 13.7.1988. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.8.1984 at about 4.00 P.M. Govt. Food Inspector Shri R.D. Goel accompanied by Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Bhatia had intercepted the petitioner at Mathura road. He was having in his possession 10 Kgs. of cow milk contained in a drum for public sale. The Food Inspector had disclosed his identity. After giving notice, he purchased 660 mls. of cow milk. It was placed in three dry and clean bottles. Requisite drops of formalin were added in each bottle. These were sealed as per requirement of law. Spot memo was prepared. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, while the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst intimated that the milk solids not fat were 6% deficient and thus the same was adulterated. It is thereafter that the complaint was filed in the Court. 3. The petitioner had opted to get the second sample tested from the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. Even therein the report was that the sample did not conform to the standard of cow milk and milk solids not fat were deficient. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and that the milk was only for domestic use was not accepted. The abovesaid order of sentence was also passed. 5. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed. 6. When the matter was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and that the milk was only for domestic use was not accepted. The abovesaid order of sentence was also passed. 5. The petitioner had preferred an appeal which was dismissed. 6. When the matter was listed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 7. It appears that the petitioners plea has been that milk sample was not taken in clean bottle. However, the said contention has simply to be stated to be rejected. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the milk samples were placed in three dry and clean bottles and thereafter sealed. There is precise little on the record further to indicate that, in fact, the bottles were not clean. Consequently, the contention as such has simply to be stated to be rejected. 8. It is true that herein no public witness has been joined. But merely because public witness has not been joined is no ground to conclude that other evidence on the record should be disbelieved. If the evidence of the Food Inspector and of the concerned doctor is reliable then there is no ground to discredit the same. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the said witnesses should not be believed. 9. During the course of the statement, Dr. (Mrs.) M.K. Bhatia, PW2, stated that she did not remember if the petitioner had stated that the milk was not for public sale. But this was clearly an after-thought. Earlier to that, no such plea had been offered that the milk was not for public sale. In fact, when the Food Inspector purchased the milk, the petitioner has been paid the price thereof. At that time, no such plea was taken. The expression "sale" for the purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is defined in Section 2(xiii) of the Act and it reads as under :- "(xiii) "Sale" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of my article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by wholesale or retail. for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article." 10. for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article." 10. A similar plea had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation v. Cherukattil Gopalan and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1725 and rejecting the same held as under :- "There is no controversy that sugar with which we are concerned in this case is an article used as food for human consumption or at any rate it is an article which ordinarily entered into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food. Even according to the respondents the sugar so kept in their tea stall was intended to be used in the preparation of tea which was being sold to the customers. A reference to the definition of "sale" will also show that a sale of any article of food for analysis comes within that definition. That the sample of food purchased by the Food Inspector in this case satisfies the definition of "sale" in clause 14 is also beyond controversy." 11. Consequently, even this contention necessarily must fail. 12. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.