A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted under section 16(l)(a)(i] of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jullundur. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur vide his judgment dated 18th April, 1978. Hence this petition.
(2.) I have perused the record. Food Inspector, Dr. R.N. Beri (PW1 took a sample of 660 Mis. of milk from the petitioner while he was carrying 20 kgs. of milk in cans on 10th July, 1975. It was divided into three parts and was put into three dry and clean glass bottles. The bottles were properly sealed and one sample bottle was handed over to the petitioner while the other yvas sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was deficient in milk fat by 32.5% and in milk solids not fat by 31.0% of the minimum prescribed standard. On the basis of this report of the Public Analyst, the milk was found to be adulterated complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. The prosecution case is supported by Dr. R.N. Beri, Food Inspector, PW 1. The petitioner took the stand at the trial that he was carrying the milk for domestic use and not for sale. He also produced in defence Piara Singh (DW 1), Sadhu Singh (DW 2) and Sudesh Kumar (DW 3).
(3.) Dr. Beri, Food Inspector, has no animus against the petitioner. No question was put to him that milk was not for sale. The defence taken by the petitioner seems to be an after thought. The adulteration of food stuffs to crossed all proportions and hardly anything pure is available in the market. The adulteration has reached the saturation point. It is the most heinous crime against the society. In my view, times have come when the State Government should think of adopting more stringent measures to check adulteration of food stuffs. I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the petition Revision dismissed.;