S.S. Sidhu, J. - (1.) Gurnam Singh, son of Bakhir Singh, aged 30 years, Mali in the Horticulture Division of P.W.D , Chandigarh, resident of village Khuda Alisher was convicted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 24th May 1974 An appeal preferred by him against his aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide its judgment dated 14th June, 1974. Gurnam Singh, therefore, came up in revision before this Court.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that at about 7.30 A.M. on 29th Dec., 1972, Shri Kuldip Singh, Food Inspector P.W. 1, was on a round in Chandigarh, when Gurnam Singh accused met him near the houses of Ministers in Sector-2. At that time, Gurnam Singh was carrying about 15 kgs. of cow milk in a container which, according to the Food Inspector, was meant for sale. The said Food Inspector served the accused with the requisite notice in the presenee of Moti Ram P.W. 2 expressing his intention of taking sample of milk from the accused. He then purchased 660 ml of cow milk as sample for analysis from the accused after making him payment of Rs. 1/- as its price. The sample of milk was divided into three equal parts and was poured into three dry and clean bottles. After adding formalin at the rate of 18 drops per bottle as preservative, the bottles were labelled and sealed on the spot. One sealed bottle was given to the accused. The Food Inspector prepared the sample seizure memo., Exhibit P.U. which was thumb-marked by the accused and was attested by Moti Ram P.W. 2. The second sample bottle was got analysed from the Public Analyst, who, vide his report, Exhibit P.D., stated that the sample of cow milk was deficient by 23 percent in milk solids not fat. A copy of that report was despatched to the accused through registered post and thereafter, on these allegations, complaint, Exhibit P.E., was filed against the accused in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate.
(3.) After recording the statement of Kuldip Singh, Food Inspector, P.W. 1, in the presence of the accused, the trial Court charged him as under:- "That you on 29-12-72 at 7.30 A.M. at Chandigarh were found in possession of 15 kgs. of adulterated cow milk which you had kept in your possession for sale and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 16(l)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the P.F.A. Act and within my cognizance. AND 1 hereby direct that you be tried by me on the above said charge." Thereafter, Kuldip Singh P.W. was further cross-examined by the defence and after that the prosecution produced Moti Ram P.W. 2 and closed its evidence. The accused in his statement recorded after the close of the prosecution evidence admitted that the sample, as stated by the Food Inspector, was taken from him, but his plea was that he was carrying i5 kgs. of milk for Hardev Singh, his Sub-Divisional Officer, which he had brought from his village when the Food Inspector happened to meet him. At that time, Dayal Singh and Gurcharan Singh too had arrived there and so also Moti Ram P.W. 2, who was running a tea stall on a rehri, and that he had told the Food Inspector that the milk was not meant for sale. Thereafter, he examined Dayal Singh D.W. 1, Gurcharan Singh D W. 2 and Shri Hardev Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer, Horticulture D.W. 3, in his defence. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused and his appeal preferred against his conviction and sentence too was dismissed by the appellate Court, as already indicated above.;