Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 115 (PNJ)

Lal Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-01-22

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - 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 stated, the facts of the case are that 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 identity 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 along with memo in Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, while the other two bottles along with memorandum in Form No. VIII where deposited with the Local Health Authority, Karnal. On receipt on 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 he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 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 he 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 homogeneous 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. 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. Revision allowed.