- (1.)The accused-petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in criminal case No. 240/1978 under its judgment dated 31st December, 1981 for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The accused petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who under his judgment dated 19th September, 1986 dismissed the appeal both in respect of conviction as well as sentence.
(2.)In assailing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended (i) that the milk was not; stirred when then the sample was taken; (ii) that there is serious delay in filing the complaint as a result of which the case of the accused is prejudiced: (iii) that it is a case where there is no indication as to what kind of milk was there, whether it was a buffalo milk, cow milk and the milk fat was found more than the prescribed standard of purety, but milk solids net far was 7.98 i.e. less than the prescribed standard and therefore, it cannot be said that the sample was adulterated as possibility of the solid not fat being less than the prescribed standard of purely as a result of not stirred the milk cannot be excluded; and (iv) that the sanction is defective; and (v) that the milk was not for sale and the accused petitioner was having a tea-stall.
(3.)First the facts and they are these. Shri Hari Shanker Gaur was posted as Fond Inspector, Municipal Board Area, Chirawa on 28th January, 1977 and on that day in the morning he reached Dalmia Park, Chirawa in the presence of motbirs and some employees of the Municipal Board checked the tea stall of the accused petitioner and noticed that the accused-petitioner was having milk for sale some in 'Tapela' and some in a bud in all be was having 17 kg. of milk. Hari Shanker Gaur purchased 660 ml. of milk after paying its price from Tapela which was having 11 kg. of milk. It was divide into three equal parts and each part was filled in clean phials and 10 drops of formaline was added in each phial Each sample was duly wrapped and sealed one say duly scaled was sent along with Form No. VII to the Public analyst who found it to be adulterated. After the consent of the local authority, a complaint was filed against the accused petitioner and the accused petitioner took a plea that he was only having a tea stall and the milk was not meant for sale and it was only meant for. The accused-petitioner did not dispute that the Food Inspector had purchased milk for him. According to him the milk was not adulterated. He also admitted that milk was filled in three phials. He also stated that he had a license but the accused petitioner did not examine any witnesses in defence and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, found the accused petitioner guilty as aforesaid and convicted and sentenced and his appeal was also dismissed.