SURINDER SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Gulshan son of Chhankanda Ram, against the decision of two Courts below as per which he stands convicted under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
(2.) THE gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that the sample of milk carried by the petitioner was found to be adulterated, in that it was deficient both in milkfat as well as milk solids not fat. The Courts blow have proceeded on the premises that according to the stand of the petitioner, he was carrying 'separeta' milk. The finding, however, is that even so, the milk was deficient from the standards prescribed for skimmed milk. The deficiency alleged is that according to the prescribed standards of skimmed milk, the fat contents have to be not less than 0.5% and milk solids not fat not less that 8.7%. The sample obtained was, however, found to contain milk fats to the extent of 0.05% and milk solids not fat to be 7.4%. The petitioner has, therefore, been convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has focused the attack only on a solitary point that at the time of taking the sample, the milk was not stirred and further that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, this fact does not find mention. The argument is that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has cited two Division Bench authorities, namely, State of Haryana v. Ram Dhan, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 56 (P&H) : 1983(1) F.A.C. 199, and State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, 1984(1) F.A.C. 166. In fact, I was a party to the latter decision. A perusal of the complaint in the present case reveals that there is no allegation that the milk had been stirred before the sample was obtained. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that it had come in evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the milk had been stirred. However, I am bound by the decision of the two Division Benches, referred to above on the question of non-mention of the allegation in the complaint.
(3.) IN the result, this Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to him.;