D.L.MEHTA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 8th November, 1984, in Appeal No. 74 of 1979 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 22nd December, 1976 the petitioner was taking two drums of milk. He was intercepted and checked by Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Food Inspector and 660 grams of she goat milk was taken by him as sample. It was divided into three equal parts and was packed in three fials, one fial was given to the petitioner. Sanction for the prosecution was also obtained. Public Analyst found the milk adulterated. Report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P 6. Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated by reason of abstraction of about 13% of its original fat. This report is dated 29th January, 1977 and is marked as Ex. P 6. Sample was received by the Public Analyst on 24th December, 1976 vide Ex. P 7. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the report was received on 29th January, 1977. Sanction was obtained on 30th March, 1977. He further submitted that the prosecution was hunched on 27th July. 1977. He submits that his client has been deprived of the right of getting the sample examined or making a prayer to the court for getting the third sample examined. He further submits that the copy of she report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to him within 10 days as required under the law.
(3.) THE next contention of Mr. Jain is that the evidence is not credible and the accused should not be convicted on the basis of such evidence. In the alternative Shri Jain prayed that the accused is a poor man. The case relates to the year 1976, as such, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be extended in his favour.;