H.K.SANDHU,J - (1.) ON 19.1.1984 Government Food Inspector Mahant Lal, while accompanied by Dr. S.K. Sharma and one Prem Chand of village Salwan intercepted Surjit Singh who carrying 20 kilograms of cows Milk on his cycle in a drum which was meant for sale. The Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 600 militres of milk for analysis, which was divided into three parts and was duly sealed in three dry and clean bottles one sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who vide his report Ex. PD found that the milk was deficient to the extent of 18% in its milk solids not fat contents and was thus adulterated. The petitioner Surjit Singh was then tried for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, who vide judgment dated 16.7.86 held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal the conviction and sentence were maintained by the additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. hence the present revision petition for setting aside the conviction and sentence.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per report of the Public Analyst Milk fat contents were found 4.01% and milk solids not fat 7.00%. Subsequently the sample was got analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and as per that report milk fat contents were found 5.08% and milk solids not fat 8.01%. When the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was not put the extent of adulteration and failure to do so caused prejudice to the petitioner. He was entitled to acquittal on this short ground. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Dhanna Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1986 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 275 and Nasib Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1986(1) Prevention Food Adulteration Cases 213. In this latter authority the question that was put to the petitioner regarding adulteration was as follows :- "It is in evidence against you that according to the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. PD, the sample was found to be adulterated. What have you to say?" It was not put to the petitioner as to what was the adulteration for which he was being charged. Since the incriminating circumstance against the petitioner was not put to him, it was held that the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was not proper and caused prejudice to the petitioner, so his revision was allowed.
(3.) IN the instant case a perusal of the statement of the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that the question put to him was :- "On receipt of the result Ex. P.D. received from the Public Analyst it was found that your sample of cow's milk had failed. What have you to say?" The petitioner was neither told that as per report of the Public Analyst milk solids not fat contents in the sample were found 7% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 9% and that as per report of the Central Food Laboratory the contents of milk solids not fat were found to be 8.1% against the minimum prescribed standard of 9%. In such circumstance the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. did not bring out actual and real circumstance that was brought out in evidence against the petitioner and his conviction was liable to be set aside on this solitary ground. ;