KALI RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with 16(1)(1A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.F. Act") vide judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara in Criminal Case No.29 of 1992 and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/ -. In Criminal Appeal No.64/1995 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara vide judgment dated 27.2.1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgments passed byboth the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) THE prosecution's case in short is that on 29.1.1991 the complainant K.P. Rai (PW1) was working as a Food Inspector for entire Narsinghpur District. At about 7.30 a.m in the morning he found that the applicant was selling milk at Bus Station Salechowka, District Narsinghpur. On enquiry the applicant informed that it was a mixed milk of cow and buffalo and therefore, the Food Inspector proposed to take a sample of that milk. Thereafter, milk was made homogeneous and 750 ml. of milk was purchased. It was divided into three parts and each part was added with 20 drops of formalin and thereafter, sealed by paper and paper slips of Local Health Authority, Narsinghpur. Various memos were prepared at the spot and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhopal and remaining parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Narsinghpur. In the report Ex.P/12 the Public Analyst found that percentage of milk fat as well as solids not -fat was low than the prescribed standard and therefore, it was found that sample was adulterated. The Deputy Director Food and Drugs Administration, Narsinghpur had granted a sanction Ex.P/4 to prosecute vide order dated 17.11.1992. A notice under Section 13(2)of the P.F. Act was sent to the applicant which was received by him on 28.1.1992. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector.

(3.) THE applicant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the mater and no sample was taken from him. However, no defence evidence was adduced.