J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) On 5th Nov., 1970, Gurdev Singh, Food Inspector, Ludhiana, intercepted the petitioner at Dandi Swami Chowk, Ludhiana, while the latter was carrying 30 kilograms of cows milk in a drum for sale. The Food Inspector took samples on payment of requisite price. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put into dry and clean bottles. Formalin was put in each bottle. All the three bottles were sealed. One sealed bottle was given to the petitioner and another was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the third was retained in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Ludhiana. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 3.9 per cent fat and 7.5 per cent milk solids not fat. He opined that the milk was adulterated. Another sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in 1974 at the instance of the petitioner and the Director found that the milk contained 5.1 per cent fat and 3.8 per cent milk solids not fat. The petitioner was consequently challaned. The trial Magistrate, vide order dated 29th March, 1975, convicted him under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00, in default of payment of which, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide Order dated 19th Dec., 1975. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the milk sample which was sealed in 1970 could not have retained its quality after 4 years. The Courts below, therefore, erred in placing reliance on the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The Public Analyst had found the sample of milk containing 3.9 per cent fat and 7.5 per cent milk solids not fat. The fat content is more or less up to the mark and there is a small deficiency in milk solids not fat. In this situation, technically speaking, the petitioner may have been rightly convicted but there is a scope for reduction of sentence awarded.
(3.) I have considered the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the Courts below is concerned, it is correct. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, there is a scope for reduction of sentence.;