NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) ON November 28, 1976 at about 8.30 a.m., Shyam Lal Bhati, Food Inspector, Gulabpura Town was on his inspection round and found the petitioner carrying milk in two containers on his bicycle infront of a small hotel of Patu Lal. The Food Inspector asked the petitioner to stop but on his failing to do so, the Inspector chased the petitioner and caught the latter near the hotel of Teekam. He brought the petitioner at the hotel of Patu Lal. Suspecting that the milk which was being carried by the petitioner was adulterated, the Food Inspector prepared a notice Ex. P 1 in Form VI to be given to the petitioner of his intention to send the sample of the milk for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst and asked the petitioner to sign it. The petitioner did not sign Ex P. 1, and went away with one out of the two containers containing milk under an excuse that he was coming back after easing himself. The Food Inspector waited for the return of the petitioner but the latter did not come back. The Inspector sent his peon Surajmal to search the petitioner but he was not found. Exercising his powers under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after, of short 'the POFA Act'), the Food Inspector took the sample of milk weighing 660 mls. from out of the milk contained in the container which had been left by the petitioner in the presence of Narayan Prasad PW 2 and Surajmal PW 3 under the document Ex. P 2. After performing necessary statutory formalities required by or under the POFA Act the Food Inspector sent one of the three sealed bottles of the sample milk to the Public Aanlyst, Bhilwara from whom the report Ex. P 5 was received by the Food Inspector that the sample of milk was adulterated as it contained about 50% added water. The Public Analyst declared the result of the analysis of the sample of milk to be as follows: (1) Fat content ...... 4.3%(2) Solid -non -fat ...... 4.5%(3) Test for starch ...... Nil(4) Test for cane sugar ...... Nil Consequently, a prosecution ensued in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura and after trial, the Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner to be guilty for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the POFA Act and sentenced him with simple imprisonment for a term of six months and with a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of the payment thereof to simple imprisonment for a further term of six months. The petitioner failed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in appeal on November 12, 1979. He has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) WHEN the revision was called for hearing on November 27, 1986, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. I, therefore, heard the Public Prosecutor and have perused the record. Four -fold attack has been made by the petitioner in his grounds of revision against his conviction recorded by the courts below. I proceed to deal with and decide them in seriatim. The first ground taken is that there wat not an iota of evidence regarding the identity of the petitioner because none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed in the trial court by pointing out towards the petitioner that the petitioner was the person to whom the Food Inspector saw with two containers or drums of milk, that the petitioner was the person to whom the Inspector had asked for a sample of the milk and that the petitioner ran away dodging the Food Inspector. On this point, it may be stated that Shyam Lal (Food Inspector) PW 1 has deposed in his cross -examination that he knew the petitioner since before the taking of the sample of milk on November 28, 1976 and also knew of his parentage and place of residence. On behalf of the petitioner himself, it was suggested to Shyam Lal in cross -examination that the latter had also launched a false prosecution regarding food adulteration against him before this prosecution. In an earlier part of his cross -examination the Food Inspector stated that he knew the petitioner since before because previous to this incident, a prosecution had been launched by him against the petitioner. What remains more regarding the identity of the petitioner and the petitioner having in his possession for sale the milk in the container seized by the Inspector when the defence witness Mewa DW 1 himself states in his examination -in -chief that the Inspector had checked the container at 8.00 a.m. and the container was on the bicycle of the petitioner. The first ground taken by the petitioner is out -rightly rejected.
(3.) THE next ground taken is that there was delay in filing of the present complaint by the Food inspector in Court. This ground, as a matter of fact, deserves even no discussion as there was no delay what so ever in the presenting of this complaint by the Food Inspector in the Court. Sample of the milk was taken by the Inspector on November 28, 1970. It was sent to the Public Analyst on the very next day and was received by the Public Analyst on November 30, 1976. The Public Analyst sent his report on December 8, 1976. The District Magistrate, Bhilwara, who was the person authorised to give consent for prosecution under Section 20 of the P.O.F.A. Act, gave his written consent on December 30, 1976 for the institution of the present prosecution. The present complaint vas filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on January 13, 1977. It is mentioned in Ex. P 4 that the Food Inspector had added 18 drops of formalin to the milk sample. The Public Analyst has certified in Ex. P 5 that the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The Public Analyst had made analysis of the milk within three days of the taking of the sample and had sent his report within eight days of the receipt of the sample. The petitioner had not made any application to the court under Section 13(2) of the P.O.F.A. Act to get the sample of the milk kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. This neither there was any delay in the filing of the complaint nor any denial to the petitioner of opportunity to make application under Section 13(2) of the P.O.F.A. Act. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself refused to take the letter Ex. P 7 which had been sent to him by the Local Health Authority along with copy of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst.;