S. S. Dewan, J. - (1.) Ram Kumar petitioner was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for having in his possession 10 Kgs. of cow's milk for sale and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to one year.
(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 18-7-1975 at about 7 a.m. the petitioner was carrying 10 Kgs. of Cow's milk for public sale when he was intercepted by the Food Inspector Sham Lal Verma near the Mill Gate, Hissar. Dr. A.S. Chaudhary, Deputy Chief Medical Officer and one non-official named Shiv Ram were with him at that time. The Food Inspector served notice to the petitioner and thereafter purchased 660 mils, of milk from him against payment of Rs. 1.30. The milk so purchased was divided into three parts and put into three dry and clean bottles. Preservative was added in the bottles and thereafter the same were stoppered and sealed. One bottle was handed over to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh and the third was retained in the office. Tho Public Analyst opined that the sample contained milk-fats 3.9% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 4%. As regards solids not fat, the sample contained only 5.5% while the minimum prescribed standard was 8.3%. The sample was stated to be deficient in milk fat by 2.5% while in milk-solids not fat, it was deficient by 35% of the minimum standard prescribed. On receipt of report, the Food Inspector made a complaint against the petitioner. The complainant made his own statement and examined Dr. A. S. Chaudhary as P.W. 2 and Shiv Ram as P.W 3 in support of his case. When examined under Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and examined Sat Narain in defence. The trial Court convicted the petitioner as indicated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld his conviction. He has now come up by way of revision.
(3.) Mr. D. S Bali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has been singularly unable to challenge the conviction of the petitioner on merits. The conviction of the petitioner is hence affirmed for the reasons recorded by the Courts below. There is, however, some merit in the contention of the petitioner that the sentence imposed deserves some reduction. Emphasis is laid on the fact of date of the recovery of the adulterated milk from the possession of the petitioner as far back as 1975 and the petitioner has now been on bail during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner has already undergone two months' imprisonment. For the aforesaid considerations I would reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, enhanced from Rs. 1,000.00 to Rs. 2,000.00 as feel that it would meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The fine shall be deposited by the petitioner within six week from today. The revision petition is dismissed with this modification in the sentence. Revision dismissed.;