FAROOQ HASAN,J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Balotra, in criminal appeal No. 36/78 dated May 4, 1979 where by he upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Banner under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on April 2, 1976 Food Inspector Shri Hansraj Parihar purchased milk weighing 660 ml. from the accused at Tilwara Cattle Fair. The milk purchased by the said Inspector was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst after observing formalities as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the report of Public Analyst the sample was containing 66% of the added water and, therefore, there was abstraction of 34% of the original fat. A complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who charged the accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused -petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial. Evidence was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and statement of the accused -petitioner was also recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the accused guilty and awarded the sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused -petitioner tiled an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Balotra, but without any success. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following objections in this revision: (i) that no complaint was filed by the Enforcement Inspector against the accused -petitioner. In the absence of a complaint the accused -petitioner cannot be convicted; (ii) that in the instant case it has not been proved that the milk kept by the accused petitioner was meant for the purposes of sale and unless it is proved the accused -petitioner cannot be convicted. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on Sardara v. State 1984 SCC 301 and State of Maharashtra v. Uday Ram 1977 Cr. L.J. 1807. ;