R.K.Shukla - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-4-1982, passed by the Sessions Judge, Etah, whereby he has upheld the conviction of the applicant under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and confirmed his sentence of two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months,
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that on 22-12-1978, at about 930 a.m., Food Inspector Sri D. L. Yadav (PW 1) purchased 6.60 grams of buffalo milk from the applicant on payment of Rs. 1.32. After completing the formalities, the sample was sent for chemical analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the milk was deficient about 7% in non-fatty solid contents. After obtaining sanction, Ex. Ka. 6 from the local health authorities, a complaint was filed on 6-10-1979. THE report of the Public Analyst along with a letter of the local health authority was sent on 26-9-1979 about 13 days before filing of the complaint. It is not disputed that the report was not received. The prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely, Dulare Lal Yadav, Food Inspector (PW 1) and Mauji Singh (PW 2). The case of the defence is that the milk was not for sale. Notice was sent to him before filing of the complaint. The strength of formaline has not been disclosed. There is no evidence of churning. No independent witness of recovery has been produced therefore, the conviction is not justified.
(3.) THE trial Court has rejected all the objections raised on behalf of Rajan Lal, applicant, convicted him under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to 2 year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, 6 month's S. I. which has been affirmed in the appeal as aforesaid. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the milk was not for sale. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case of Nazir v. State of U. P., 1983 ACrR 302. After going through the judgments of both the subordinate Court's it cannot be said that the milk taken for sample was; not for sals. Dulare Lal Yadav, PW 1 has clearly stated that he caught the applicant with buffalo milk in a can on his bicycle, which was for sale and after giving his introduction, he purchased the milk for test. There is no cross-examination of this witness on the point that milk was not for sale. No argument was advanced before the trial Court that the milk was not for sale. In the appellate Court, however this argument was advanced but the same was rejected. I find no reason to disbelieve title statement of the Food Inspector that the milk was for sale. The case of Nazir v. State of U. P. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case Hon. Mr. Justice R. C. Deo Sharma of this Court was satisfied that there was no reliable evidence 10 indicate that Nazir was either carrying on business of sale of milk or at the particular moment he was carrying, conveying or storing milk for sale. But in the instant case, the Food Inspector has clearly stated as aforesaid that the milk was for sale and there is no cross-examination on this point. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the milk was not for sale and in this view of the matter, I reject this argument.;