S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of Shri G.S. Sandhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.
(2.) THE case proceeded on the complaint of Dr. Lalit Mohan Gupta, Food Inspector, PW 1. It is alleged that on 25.5.1977 at about 8.30 A.M. he alongwith Dr. Charanjit Singh intercepted the petitioner on Jagraon road, Ludhiana, when he was having in his possession 80 Kgs. of cows' milk contained in a big aluminum cylinder for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cows' milk from the petitioner against receipt, Exhibit P.B. on payment of Rs. 1.20 P. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated as its quality was below the prescribed standard.
(3.) THE only point pressed upon me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing on the record to show that before taking the sample of milk from the petitioner, the milk contained in the cylinder was properly stirred either by the Food Inspector or by his associate. The Courts below, however, accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector at its face value that the contents of the milk in the cylinder been made homogenous and ruled out the defence plea that the milk was not stirred before the sample was taken. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On this point, the Food Inspector has no doubt stated in the trial Court that the milk was made homogeneous before the same was purchased but in the cross -examination he stated that it was not stirred by him but by the petitioner himself. In the complaint Exhibit P.E., it is nowhere mentioned that the milk was made homogeneous or that it was stirred by the petitioner himself. It is a matter of common knowledge that cream accummulates on the top of the milk and if the milk is not properly stirred when the sample is taken, it is bound to be deficient in essential ingredients. In view of the above, there is no escaping the conclusion that the sample must have been taken by the Food Inspector without stirring milk in the cylinder and without making the milk homogeneous. In view of this, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The result, therefore, is that the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Petition accepted.;