Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition filed by Ram Kumar son of Dhanpat, resident of Ghoghripur, Police Station Saddar, Karnal, against the judgment dated 20-9-1975 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 9-9-1974 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, whereby he convicted him under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with section 7 of that Act and sentenced hm to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay Rs. 2,000.00 as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(2.) The facts of this case are that on 20-3-1974 at about 8 A.M., Ran) Kumar petitioner was intercepted at Hansi Road, Karnal, by the Government Food Inspector and he was found in possession of 18 kilograms of cow's milk for sale. The Food Inspector in the presence of Dr. M.S. Chaudhry and one Ishwar Chand, Octroi Moharrir, purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk on payment of 80 paise vide receipt Exhibit P.B., duly thumb-marked by the accused. The Food Inspector divided the milk into three equal parts and put it in three dry dean bottles. He added 18 drops of formalin as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in strong thick paper, which was secured by means of a strong twine and sealed with distinct seals of the Food Inspector and the Medical Officer accompanying him. One sealed bottle was handed over to the accused vide memo Exhibit : P.C. and the other two bottles were deposited in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Karnal, and from there one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, along with memo and specimen impression of the seal used. The Public Analyst found the milk to be adulterated as being deficient to the extent of 60 per cent in milk fat and 33 per cent deficient in solids not fat. On receipt *of this report, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. I Thereafter, he filed this revision petition.
(3.) Mr. Kartar Singh Raipuri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 1 argued that according to the report Exhibit P.D. of the Public Analyst, the I analysis of the milk was undertaken on 21-3-1974 and the same was completed I on 26-3-1974, and that the sample remained in open condition and, therefore, the report of the Public Analyst should not be relied upon. This contention is without force and must be rejected. In the report Exhibit P.D., it is simply mentioned that when the Public Analyst received the sample of the milk for analysis, the seals were intact and unbroken and that the date of analysis was 21-3-1974 and that the date of completion was 26-3-1974. The report bore the signatures of the Public Analyst and the date 29-3-1974. There is nothing in the report to suggest that the sample remained in open condition from 21-3-1974 onwards. He opined that the sample was fit for analysis. There is no substance in this argument and the same is rejected.;