S. C. Jain, J. - (1.) ON 3.3.80 at about 8 a.m. Ramkesh, the revision petitioner herein, was intercepted and was found in possession of 12 litres of mixed cow and buffaloes milk for sale. 600 ml. of milk was purchased as sample. It was divided into three parts and after addition of preservative the three phials were duly sealed. ONe of the phials was sent to the public Analyst who after analysing the same submitted his report dated 22.4.80 to the effect that the sample contained milk fat 2.1% and non-fatty solids 3% and therefore it was deficient by 53% in respect of fat and 65% in respect of non fatty solids. After observing the due formalities a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector.
(2.) AT the trial the Food Inspector examined Ram Singh, P.W. 2 as witness of purchase of sample and Ram Kishun, a clerk of the C.H.O's office P.W. 3, to prove the sanction and despatch of the notice of prosecution to the accused. The accused examined in his defence Abdul Rahman, D.W. 1. The learned Magistrate believing the prosecution evidence convicted the revision petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1982, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur vide his order dated 17.6.82 thereby confirming the judgment and order of the trial court. It is that judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur the sustainability whereof has been challenged before me.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned State counsel and have gone through the relevant record. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have failed to take into consideration that according to Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (for short the rules), the Inspector was bound to obtain 660 ml. of milk as sample and had to send 220 ml. of milk to the Public Analyst, whereas he had sent only 200 ml. of milk for that purpose, ad since the requirement of the said rule has not been complied with, the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. The language in which Rule 22 is couched has to be examined. The said rule is reproduced below: "22. Quantity of sample to be sent to Public Analyst-The quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst/Director for analysis shall be as specified below: Article of Food Approximate quantity to be sent 220 ml (i) Milk (ii) to (XXXVII) .....;