SURINDER SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by Subash Kumar son of Mewa Ram, aged 22 years, who was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gurdaspur, under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was 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.The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, and hence the present Revision Petition.
(2.) THE prosecution version is that on July 29,1985, Dr. B. D. Dogra (P.W. 1) Medical Officer, Rural Dispensary, Dorangala, vested with the powers, of Food Inspector under the Act, visited the shop of the petitioner at Hardoohhar Road,Gurdaspur, at about 9.35 a.m. Surinder Kumar, a Coal Depot owner in the neighbourhood was joined for the raid. This Surinder Kumar who was cited as a prosecution witness was, however, given up as having been over and he appeared in defence as D.W. 2.It was stated that an iron Karahi containing about 6 litres of cow's milk was lying at the shop of the petitioner meant for sale. Dr. B. D. Dogra obtained a sample of the milk which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. According to the report of the said office (Exhibit PD), the milk was found to be deficient in milk solids not facts content in that the same were 7.6% instead of 8.5% as required under the rules. The fact contents of the milk, however, were found to be in excess of the prescribed standards i.e. 5.4% as against the required 4.5%. In view of the deficiency in milk solids as above, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner, as result of which the petitioners was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Mr. Harinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case against the petitioner had not been subtained beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued in the first instance that there was a fatal error in the trial of the petitioner inasmuch as the alleged deficiency of milk solids not fats were never put to the petitioner in his examination under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further contended that the statement of the solitary official witness had not been corroborated by the independent witness Surinder Kumar who had appeared as a defence witness to support the version of the petitioner. According to this version, one Varinder Kumar, who was examined as D.W. 1, had come to the shop of the petitioner with a can containing milk and the sample had been taken by the Food Inspector from the said can belonging to Varinder Kumar. It was asserted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in place of Varinder Kumar. This version of the petitioner has been fully supported by Surinder Kumar (D.W. 2) who runs a Coal-Depot near the shop of the petitioner and who was admittedly associated by the Food Inspector at the time of the taking of the sample. The petitioner produced further evidence to support his version by putting into the witness box Varinder Kumar (D.W. 1) who owned that the sample had been taken by the Food Inspector from the milk which belonged to him. These arguments have indeed force. On behalf of the State, all that is submitted is, that testimony of the Food Inspector may be believed. It is, however, apparent that the petitioner has succeeded in creating a dent in the prosecution version and raising doubt in regard to its correctness. The being so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
(3.) IN the result, this Revision Petition is allowed,the conviction and sentence of the petition are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He in on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.;