R. K. Sbukla, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-6-1981, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, whereby he has confirmed the conviction and sentence of six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 29-1-1978 at about 8.45 a.m. Food Inspector Nagar Palika, Muzaffarnagar Sri R. K. Goel PW 1 took a sample of 6.60 grams of buffalo milk from the applicant for chemical test on payment of Rs. 1.80. After observing all formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report on 30-1-1978, which was received by him on 15-6-1978. The report of the Public Analyst, Ex. Ka-4 dated 8-6-1978 reveals that there was deficiency of 3% in fat and 9% in non-fatty solid contents, which was below the prescribed standard under the Act. Thus the milk was found adulterated. After obtaining sanction, Ex. Ka-6, for the prosecution of the applicant from the local health authorities, a complaint Ex. Ka-5, was filed in the court of the Munsif/Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 30-11-1978. A copy of the report of the analysis in Form III along with a letter was sent to the applicant on 7-12-1978 through registered post on the address provided by the applicant at the time of taking of the sample which returned unserved. The prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely, R. K. Goel P. W. 1, Mahendra Pal Singh PW 2 and Om Das, Safai Naik PW 3 in support of its case The applicant has stated that the Food Inspector purchased 6.60 grams buffalo milk from him ; but he has not paid its price. He has admitted that he was checked by the Food Inspector and he signed the notice and receipt, Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He further stated that the milk was not for sale, but the same was being taken by him to the house of his sister in Mohalla Mallupur, who was ill. That milk was given to the applicant by his brother-in-law, Sukhbir Singh to deliver it to his sister. In support of his defence he has produced three witnesses namely, Dr. R. K. Sharma DW 1, Sukhbir Singh DW 2 and Nain Singh DW 3.
(3.) AFTER considering the entire evidence on record the Munsif/Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which has been confirmed in appeal by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnager, hence this revision. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the milk was not for sale In this connection he has referred the statement of Dr. R. K. Sharma DW 1 and Sukhbir Singh DW 2 The doctor does not say that this milk was being taken by the applicant for the doctor or his patient. He has also stated that the applicant was in his service and the applicant told him that he was checked by the Food Inspector when he was taking the milk to his sister. Sukhbir Singh DW 2 the brother-in-law of the applicant has stated that he gave the applicant 4 Kgs milk to deliver it to his sister. There is a concurrent of fact by both the lower courts that the milk was for sale There is no need to interfere with that finding. Moreover, the quantity of 4-5 Kgs of milk itself suggests that it was for sale and not for being taken to the patient, who could hardly need this much milk Therefore, I find no force in this argument and reject it.;