NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision the accused challenges his conviction and sentence under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 28-l0-1985, at about 8.30 a.m., applicant Narayan Singh was seen carrying milk in two canisters slung to his cycle in Civil Lines, Datia. Food Inspector Ram Hazur Shrivastava (P.W. 1) stopped him and purchased a sample of milk from him measuring 660 Ml. The applicant gave out that the milk was cow milk. The sample milk was put into 3 glass phials after adding prescribed quantity of formalin in each. Phials were duly packed and sealed. One of the phials was sent by the Food Inspector to Public Analyst, Bhopal for analysis. The Public Analyst, vide his report Ex. P-10, reported that the sample milk contained fat 4.0% and solids non-fat (SNF) 5.81%. This was below the standard prescribed for cow-milk and was therefore adulterated. The applicant was convicted under S. 7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the two Courts below. The sentence awarded by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court was rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000 / -, in default to further simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2A. The first point urged by Shri R. P. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, was that appointment of Ram Hazur Shrivastava (P.W. 1) as Food Inspector was not properly proved. It was urged that Ram Hazur Shrivastava (P.W. 1) in his evidence had produced a photo-stat copy of an alleged notification issued by the Local Health Authority, District Datia, authorising him, besides some others, to act as Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for Datia District. It was submitted that the original notification issued by the Local Health Authority should have been produced for inspection of the Court and then only the photo-stat copy could have been marked as Ex. P-1. Since the photo-stat copy was only produced, it was wrongly marked as an exhibit and it did not properly prove the appointment in question. I find that this objection was not taken at any time during trial. Had it been taken, there would have been no difficulty for the prosecution to have produced the original notification of the Local Health Authority, Datia. Such a challenge cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time either in appeal or revision. In fact, this challenge is also not one of the grounds taken in the present revision petition. It is too late in the day for the applicant to raise this kind of objection for the first time and that too beyond his revision petition.

(3.) It was next urged that there was no evidence that the milk was actually sold by the applicant to anybody. Although the evidence of Food Inspector Ram Hazur Shrivastava (P.W. 1) was that applicant was supplying milk to one Rakesh Kumar, that evidence could not be believed because Rakesh Kumar was not examined as a prosecution witness. On the other hand, Rakesh Kumar was examined by the applicant as a defence witness and he deposed that he did not even know the applicant, muchless had he purchased any milk from him. There is no force in this contention. The evidence of Food Inspector Ram Hazur Shrivastava ( P.W. 1) shows that the applicant was carrying milk in two canisters slung to his cycle. That would show that the applicant was a milk-vendor. Rakesh Kumar (D.W. 1) is a literate person and he admitted that he had signed Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4. He wanted it to be believed that he had signed those papers without reading them, which makes a heavy demand on human credulity. He was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. It was amply proved from the evidence of Food Inspector Ram Hazur Shrivastava that the applicant was a milk vendor who was seen carrying milk in two canisters on his cycle. The milk being carried by him was therefore meant for sale. At any rate, the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of milk from him on payment of price of Rs. 2/ -, vide receipt Ex. P-3. A sale for analysis is expressly defined as sale under the Act, vide C1. (xiii) of S. 2. Surprisingly enough, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision, Mohammad Yamin v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1973 SC 484 (1972 Cri LJ 1198). That decision provides a complete answer to the contention of the applicant, since it lays down that a sale to a Food Inspector is a sale for the purpose of S. 16 of the Act, and that the article of food sold to the Food Inspector need not have been taken from a larger quantity kept for sale and further that the person by whom the article of food was sold to the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in the article. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Mangaldas v. Maharashtra State, AIR 1966 SC 128 : (1966 Cri LJ 106), Food Inspector Calicut v. C. Gopalan, AIR 1971 SC 1725 : (1971 Cri LJ 1277) and State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1980 SC 538 : (1980 Cri LJ 402) are also to the same effect.