Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - . In default of payment of fine, he has also been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for' a further period of six months.
(2.) AN appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra. In support of this revision petition it has been urged that the formaline mixed in the sample was not in the quantity prescribed under the rule. It was pointed out that according to the report of the Director, formaline which was added to the sample was 0.18 ml. per 100 ml. of sample. That would clearly go to show (that) formaline was not added to the extent of the prescribed quantity. The sample is said to have been examined after about 48 days. The report of the Director with regard to the deficiency in the sample, therefore, could not be indicative of the quality of the milk from which sample was taken. The report of the Director undoubtedly is conclusive Under Section 13 Sub -section (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but the report is based upon an analysis of the sample with regard to which Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been complied with. It is quite possible that in the absence of right quantity of preservative in the, sample, after the lapse of 48 days, non fatty substance of the milk may have been damaged.
(3.) IN the view that I have taken, the Petitioner should not have been convicted for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;