M.R. Sharmah, J. - (1.) The sample of milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent was found to be sub-standard. The learned trial Magistrate gave him the benefit of doubt on the ground that the deficiency in milk-solids not fats was marginal in nature. In coming to this conclusion, the learned trial Magistrate relied upon Jagat Ram Vs. The State of Haryana, 1981 (2) FAC 119 . However, the view taken in the aforementioned authority was over ruled in State of Haryana Vs. Harpat and another, 1982 (2) FAC 397 . It is thus obvious that on the basis of the view of law taken by the learned trial Magistrate the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(2.) The learned defence counsel has, however, submitted that there was no evidence that the milk was thoroughly stirred by the Food Inspector at the time he took the sample of milk. In this connection he drew our attention to the statement of Gurmej Singh D.W. 1 who has stated on oath that the Food Inspector did not stir the milk before taking the sample. This witness is an attesting witness of all the Memos, prepared by the Food Inspector. The learned counsel also submitted that the plea that the milk had been stirred before the sample was obtained does not find any mention in the complaint. The Food Inspector at the stage of the trial did state that the milk was stirred but in view of the submission made by the learned defence counsel we deem fit and proper to give benefit of doubt to the respondent on this point. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition. The leave asked for is declined. Petition dismissed.;