S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) Gurmej Singh petitioner was convicted by the trial magistrate u/s 16(l)(a)(i) and 16(l)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under the first count and to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under the second count, with the direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar upheld his conviction and sentence and hence the present revision petition.
(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that on 28-3-1974 Dr. B.R. Chawla, Govt. Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Raj Paul Bhatia and Rattan Jamadar were present outside Ghee Mandi at Amritsar when the petitioner came on a bicycle with a valtoha containing 10 Kgs. of milk for sale. Dr. Chawla purchased 660 mis. of cow's milk from him for analysis, on payment of Rs. 1/- vide receipt Ex. PB. The milk purchased was divided into three equal parts and thereafter the same was poured into three clean and dry bottles. After completing the formalities, one of the sample bottles was handed over to the petitioner and the other sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for its examination. The public analyst vide his report Ex. PF found the sample to be adulterated, being deficient in milk-fat being 1.2% instead of 4% and milk-solids not fat 7.5% instead of 8.5%. On the filing of the complaint by the Food Inspector, the evidence was led by the prosecution. The petitioner was then convicted and was sentenced as indicated above.
(3.) The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of Dr. B.R. Chawla (P.W. 1). The petitioner took rather vacillating pleas in defence and examined three defence witnesses in support thereof. The trial court unhesitatingly found that the defence plea taken by the petitioner was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The appellate court has affirmed the said finding.;