KURDA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order dated 11.5.2001 passed by the appellate court, whereby, conviction of the petitioner under section 7 /16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sentence to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment has been maintained. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that sample of the milk was collected by the Food Inspector and sent for test to the Public Analyst. On laboratory test, milk was found adulterated.

(2.) IT is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the report of the Public Analyst only shows adulteration of milk but reasons thereof have not been given i.e. as to whether milk fat or non solid milk fat was less than the standard provided for it. Based on the said report, conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable. The issue aforesaid was ignored by both the courts below thus petitioner may be acquitted of the charges under section 7 /16(1)(A) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the order of conviction and sentence. He submits that looking to the adulterated milk, order of conviction and sentence is appropriate. The prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. The samples of milk was taken from the petitioner, thus he has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 7 /16(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, interference in the order of conviction and sentence may not be made.