Ujagar Singh J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to the Petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(l)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act).
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that on 20th August, 1983 at 5.00 P.M. Government Food Inspector Shri A. N. Gupta took a sample of 660 ml mixed milk of buffalo and cow from 10 kgs of mixed milk in possession of the Petitioner. This quantity of milk was contained in a Patila of aluminium. Notice in form VI Ex. PA was given before purchasing the milk for analysis against an amount of Rs. 2.65. Receipt Ex. PB was given to the Petitioner. The sample was divided into three equal parts, and poured into three dry and clean bottles after adding 18 drops of formaline in each bottle and thereafter Food Inspector completed the required formalities. One of the sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and Ex. PD is his report, according to which the milk fat was 6.0 per cent and milk solids not fat 7.6 per cent, with the result that there was no deficiency in the milk fat but milk solids not fat were deficient by; 11 per cent. The prosecution examined PW1 Shri A. N. Gupta G.F.I., PW2 Dr. D. D. Setia and PW3 Fateh Singh a clerk from the C.M.O.'s office. ' Report Ex. PD was tendered in evidence and Vijay Kumar a witness from the public was given up as having been won over. The Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The trial Court' considered the facts brought on the file and convicted and sentenced the Petitioner. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence was disposed of by the Sessions Court and except reducing the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment, the remaining sentence was maintained.
(3.) THE counsel for the Petitioner has argued that there is no averment in the complaint that the milk was stirred before taking the sample. Mere evidence on this point cannot fill up the lacuna. The other argument raised by the counsel is that the milk had been boiled and it had cooled down. As a result thereof, layer of the cream was on the top of the milk and the witnesses are discrepant about this fact. The counsel also raised the question of absence of notice about the report leading to the prejudice to the Petitioner inasmuch as he could not apply for sending one of the sample bottles with the Local Health Authority, to the Director, Central Food Laboratory.;