N.N.Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28-11-1981 recorded by Sri Ruri Mal, learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1980 by which the conviction of appellant under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was affirmed. His sentence of six months R. I was also affirmed but the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- was reduced to Rs. 1000/- only and thus the order of learned II Addl. Munsif-Magistrate, Mainpuri dated 5-11-1980 in Case No. 126 of 1980 was modified.
(2.) PROSECUTION case was that on 21-6-1979 Sri V. P. Chaudhari, Chief Food Inspector of Mainpuri PW 1, purchased cow milk weighing 660 Ml. for sampling vide receipt Ext. Ka 2 duly signed by the revisionist and the witnesses. On analysis it was found to contain milk fat 4.0% and non-fatty solids 4.0%. Thus it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 53% vide report Ext. Ka 4 dated 13-7-1979. After obtaining necessary sanction from Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri revisionist was sent up ; revisionist denied the aforesaid allegation ; learned trial Magistrate believed the testimony of three prosecution witnesses and recorded the conviction and sentence as given above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first contention put forward on behalf of the revisionist was that there has been non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 10 (7) in the present case. Sample of milk was taken at the gate of district Hospital Mainpuri where several shops were situated but no shop keeper or member of public was called to attest the receipt. It appears that in this case Sri V. P. Chaudhari purchased sample in presence of Ram Pr.akash, Food Inspector, PW 2 and one Nathu Lal who duly signed the receipt. Food Inspector further testified that he requested other witnesses also to come forward and attest the receipt but they did not listen to him. This statement finds a corroboration from his endorsement made at the time of preparation of receipt. His statement on this point remained unshaken and was believed by the learned trial Magistrate.
(3.) LEARNED Advocates for the revisionist relied upon Shanti Prasad v. State, 1978 ACrR 452. In that case Food Inspector did not make any attempt at all to procure the attestation by independant witnesses who were available on the spot. Under the circumstances it was held that attestation by a person who was amenable to his influence was not sufficient compliance of the obligation cast on the Food Inspector. This ruling is not in point. The next contention was that the milk was not meant for sale and so the transaction did not amount to sale. Such contention was also repelled in Dammon v. State, 1982 P. F. Cases page 255. In that case contention of the revisionist was that he was taking milk for offering Pooja at the temple of Rangeshwar Mahadeo. However, this contention was rejected by the court and it was held that any sale of milk to Food Inspector as evidence by Ext. Ka 2 did entail the penalty laid by Section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act.;