SAHIB SINGH Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 800 of 1989 re: Jaswant Singh v. U. T. Chandigarh, are directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 28-8-1989 whereby the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, dated 21-1-1988, convicting the petitioners under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months was modified and only substantive imprisonment was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. As common questions of law and fact are involved both these petitions shall be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 21-3-1985, at about 4 p. m. Shri O. P. Gautam, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Mulkh Raj went to the shop run under the name and style of M/s Prima Sweets and Restaurant, S. C. F. No. 26, Sector 10d, Chandigarh, owned by Jaswant Singh petitioner. At that time Sahib Singh petitioner working in that establishment was found in possession of 15 Kgs. of standard boiled milk kept in a container (Patila) for sale. After disclosing his identity and serving notice, the Food Inspector stirred the contents of the container and purchased 700 M. L. of standard boiled milk from Sahib Singh petitioner on payment of Rs. 3/ -. Receipt in respect of the said payment was duly signed by Sahib Singh and attested by Mulkh Raj. . Sample of milk so taken was transferred into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. Bottles were properly corked, labelled and sealed. Paper slips bearing code number of the Local Health Authority were also pasted on each bottle, as per rules. Signatures of the accused were also taken on each bottle according to Rules. One sealed bottle, copy of form VII were sent to public Analyst for analysis, whereas, the remaining bottles along with copy of form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Report of the Public Analyst reveals that the sample of milk was found adulterated in millk fats to the extent of 0. 8 per cent and was deficient by 82 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. Copy of the report of the Public Analyst was duly sent to the accused through registered post. Besides the Food Inspector, Sanga Yadav was examined as PW 2. Mulkh Raj PW was, however, given up as having been won over by the accused.

(3.) THE petitioners when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations appearing in evidence against them. Sahib Singh denied having been working as servant of Jaswant Singh. He pleaded that he used to do catering work of marriage parties and used to go to the shop of Jaswant Singh, in search of work and that Food Inspector got his signatures on certain papers. He also pleaded that he informed the Food Inspector that he was not concerned with the shop and that he had not sold any milk to the Food Inspector. Jaswant Singh petitioner denied that Sahib Singh was his servant and stated that Sahib Singh does catering work and contacted him on and off. In defence Mulkh Raj was examined as DW 1.