S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) Mukhtiar Singh petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga for an offience under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot in an elaborate judgment not merely upheld the conviction but also confirmed the sentence. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner was found carrying 40 kgs. of cows milk for sale in two drums. Dr. Sat Pal, Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated. So, he purchased 660 mls. of milk from the petitioner fora price of Rs. 1.25 paise vide receipt Ex. P. D. After purchasing the sample of milk, the Food Inspector divided it into three equal parts and sealed each part in one clean and dry bottle properly in the presence of Dr. Bhullar. Later on, one of the sealed bottles containing the sample milk was sent to public analyst who upon analysis found that the milk was adulterated as it contained 2.7 per cent milk fat and 5.1 per cent milk-solid not fat. The public analyst sent his report to the Food Inspector who after obtaining the requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the aforesaid offence filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner before me that the requirement of section 10(7) of the Act have not been complied with. Under this provision when the Food Inspector takes any action as specified in sub-sections (1)(a), (2)(4) and (6) he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time such action is taken and take his or their signatures. It is manifest from the record that Dr. Sat Pal purchased milk from the petitioner in the presence of Dr. Bhullar who remained present at the spot throughout the proceedings and he attested the necessary memos and the petitioner also signed the same. In the premises, there is no justification in the allegation that the provisions have not been complied with. In this situation, the courts below were justified to hold on the evidence of the Food Inspector that he had complied with the requirements and that the samples were sealed in the presence of Dr. Bhullar whose signatures were taken in the presence of the petitioner.;