- (1.) V. N. Verma, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-3-1973 passeed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut confirming the convic tion and sentence recorded against the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Pre vention of Food ''adulteration Act.
(2.) AT the relevant time applicant Gopi Chand was supplier of milk in the Medical College, Meerut. Applicant Bhagwana was his employee and he used to carry the milk on behalf of his master for being supplied to the Medical College. On 2nd December, 1970 also he was seen carrying milk to the college in a contai ner. On that day at about 9. 30 a. m. Food Inspector, Joti Prasad Tyagi stopped him in the way and disclosed his identity to him. He purchased by way of sample 660 mililitre of milk from him for '75 P. The milk so purchased was divided in three parts and kept in three separate phials. One of the phials was given to applicant Bhagwana. The Food Inspector also pave notice in Form 6 to him. One of the sample phials was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and report. The Public Analyist found the sample of milk deficient in fat contents by 45 per cent and non-fatty solids by about 39 percent. The applicants were, therefore, sent up to stand their trial u/sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Both the applicants pleaded not guilty Applicant Gopl Chand admitted that he used to supply milk to Medical College, Meerut. He also admitted that appellant Bhagwana was his employee and he used to carry milk to Medical College on his behalf. His contention, however, is that on 2-12-1970 appli cant Bhagwana had supplied milk to the Medical College at about 8. 40 A. M. and that he never sold any milk to the Food Inspector by way of sample at 9. 30 A. M. According to him if any sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector it was taken from the kitchen of the hospital. The defence put forward by applicant Bhagwana also is more or less on similar lines. He too has stated that no sample of milk was taken from him, but it was taken from the kitchen of the hospital of the Medical College. The trial Court found the pro secution case proved and it, therefore, convicted the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulte ration Act and sentenced each of them to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The applicants felt aggrieved with the judgment of the trial Court and went up in appeal to the Court of Addi tional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The Ad ditional Sessions Judge dismissed their appeal and hence this revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants at sufficient length and after doing so I do not think that this revision has any merit behind it. There is enough material on record to prove beyond doubt that the Food Inspector had taken sample of milk from applicant Bhagwana while the latter was on his way to the Medical College for supp lying milk there. The Food Inspector, who had taken the sample, was Joti Prasad Tyagi. Joti Prasad Tyagi has stated in clear terms that he had stopped applicant Bhagwana near the house of Dr. Bhatia at 9. 30 A. M. and had taken the sample of milk from him there. This statement of Joti Prasad Tyagi finds sup port from the papers which were prepar ed when the sample of milk was taken. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, Joti Prasad Tyagi should not be relied upon because in a case decided earlier certain strictures had been passed against him. Merely because certain strictures were passed against him of some case his credibility would not set shattered for all times to come. All that the rules of caution demand is that his statement should be fully scrutinised before it is acted upon. That scrutiny have done and have found nothing wanting in his evidence. As stated abo ve, the papers prepared at the time when the sample was taken fully support him. On the strength of his statement I am fully satisfied that he had taken the sample of milk from applicant Bhagwana near the house of Dr. Bhatia on 2-12 -1970 at 9. 30 A. M. Then there is also the statement of R. S, Yadav. At the relevant time he was steward in the Medical College, Meerut. Receipt Ex. Ka-l which was prepared at the time when the sample was taken bears his signature. This receipt clearly shows that the Food Inspector had taken the sample of milk at 9. 30 A. M. near the house of Dr. Bhatia. Notice Ex. Ka-2 also tells the same thing. In court, how ever, R. S. Yadav tried to show that he was not present when the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector. Ac cording to him he had signed the receipt Ex. Ka-l without reading it. R. S. Yadav is a Graduate and is in Government Service for the past several years. It is more or less impossible for me to believe that he had signed Ex. Ka-l without going through it. Obviously, when the case came to Court, he colluded with the applicants and tried to help them by making a false statement. I am certain that he was present near the house of Dr. Bhatia when the Food Inspector took the sample of milk from applicant Bhag wana. The defence suggestion that the sample of milk was taken from the kitchen of the Medical College is all false, and the courts below have given good reasons for disbelieving this part of the defence case. Thus, from a perusal of what I have mentioned above, it is clear beyond all doubt that the Food Inspector, Sri Joti Prasad Tyagi had taken the sample of milk from applicant Bhagwana, while the latter was taking the milk to the Medical College for being supplied there. This milk was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sam ple of milk was adulterated as it was deficient in fact contents by 45 per cent and non-fatty solids by about 39 per cent. Applicant Bhagwana was an em ployee of applicant Gopi Chand and he was carrying milk on his behalf. Both the applicants were, therefore, very rightly convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.;