G.D. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THE State of U.P. has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur acquitting the Respondent of the offence punishable Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that Food Inspector P.C. Goel took a sample of milk from the possession of the Respondent on 9 -4 -71 in the morning in presence of P.W. Om Prakash. The sample was kept in three bottles according to the rules and preservative was added. One bottle was given to the Respondent and one was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst shows that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 29 per cent, and non -fatty solids by 25 percent. The plea of the Respondent was that the milk was not meant for sale. The trial Court rejected this plea and held that the Appellant was guilty of selling adulterated milk. The trial court imposed a sentence of R.I. for six months and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default further R.I. for two months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the conviction of the Respondent was bad because of the non -compliance of Rule 21. It was remarked that the Food Inspector had not stated that he had fixed any labels on the bottles or made any note on the labels about quantity of preservative added, its description and its quality. The learned Sessions Judge also seems to be of the view that uncorroborated testimony of the Food Inspector to the effect that such preservative was added in such and such quantity was not enough. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The view taken by the lower appellate court seems to be erroneous. In the memo prepared by the Food Inspector, the nature and quantity of preservative have been mentioned. I do not think that if the labels was not affixed or if the nature of preservative was not mentioned on the labels, it was a fatal defect. I also cannot agree with the remark of the learned Sessions Judge that the testimony of the Food Inspector about observance of this formality should be rejected, only because it is not corroborated by any other testimony. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court has not been disbelieved by the lower appellate court nor was it challenged before me. For these reasons the appeal has to succeed and the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court should be restored. But because the matter is already more than five years old and the Respondent has been in jail for some time, I do not think it would be proper to send the Respondent to jail again after the lapse of such a long time. The sentence may, therefore, be reduced to the period already undergone.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal succeeds. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court is restored. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs. 100/ - as the Respondent is a petty vendor. The fine should be paid within two months from the date of the receipt of the record by the court concerned. In case of default the Respondent shall undergo R.I. for one month. His bail bonds are discharged.;