RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-162
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 15,2013

RAM KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Rajasthan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this revision petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by the trial Court so as the Appellate Court maintaining conviction for an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The samples of milk taken are found to be substandard, thus order of conviction was passed. As per the report, contents of milk solid non fat were less than 0.5 percent and contents of milk fat were less than 0.2 percent. In view of above, the milk was said to be adulterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses to prove the case, thus conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Sec. 7/16 of PFA Act deserves to be set aside.
(2.) IT is alternatively argued that even if conviction is maintained, the matter can be sent for commutation as per Section 433 of Cr.P.C. and for the aforesaid purpose, a reference of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara reported in : (1997) 9 SCC 101 has been given wherein taking note of Section 433 of Cr.PC., the matter was referred to the appropriate government for commutation of sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the order of conviction and submits that looking to the adulteration in the milk, order of conviction and sentence is appropriate. The prosecution could prove his case beyond doubt and therein, not only the statement of Food Inspector but chemical report of sample was produced showing that contents of milk fat were less than by 0.2 percent and contents of solid non fat were less than 0.5 percent, thus milk was found to be adulterated. The samples of milk was taken from the petitioner, thus he has rightly been convicted for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of PFA Act. Accordingly, interference in the order of conviction and sentence may not be made.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.