GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision petition by Gurcharan Singh against his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- or one month's further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of find. Shri S.R. Sharma, Government Food Inspector took at 10 a.m. on November 28, 1969 sample of milk out of can of cow's milk being carried for sale by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with copy of notice-Exhibit P.A. informing him that the sample was sought to be taken for the purpose of analysis. The petitioner executed and thumb marked receipt for 90 paise received by him in lieu of the sample of milk sold to the Food Inspector. That receipt is Exhibit P.B. The milk sold was divided into three equal parts. Each part was put in a cleaned bottle. The three bottles were sealed after the addition of formalin as preservative. Memo pertaining to recovery and sealing of sample of milk thumb-marked by the petitioner is Exhibit P.C. These three documents are also thumb-marked by Sohan Lal as an attesting witness. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the milk contained 4.5 per cent of fat and 8.0 per cent of solids not fat.

(2.) Shri S.R. Sharma, Government Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner. In support of that complaint, the Food Inspector and Sohan Lal appeared as witnesses. The recovery of milk from the possession of the petitioner was proved by the evidence of the Food Inspector. Sohan Lal, however, did not support him. Sohan Lal admitted that these documents had been thumb-marked by him but no sample of milk was taken in his presence out of the can of the petitioner.

(3.) In his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner did not deny having thumb-marked the above three documents, namely, copy of notice Exhibit P.A., receipt Exhibit P.B. and memo of recovery, Exhibit P.C. He, however, stated that his thumb impressions had been obtained under pressure. He also denied that any sample of milk had been taken from him. In support of his defence, he produced two witnesses. The trial Court as well as lower appellate Court on the evidence led by the prosecution were satisfied that sample of milk had been taken from the can of the petitioner and that documents had been duly executed by him and that his denial that sample of milk was not taken out of his can be untenable. As regards the evidence of Sohan Lal, the Courts found that Sohan Lal was present at the time the sample was taken and the documents were thumb-marked by him as an attesting witness and that his stand that he did not know about the contents of the documents was of no avail to the petitioner. In conclusion both the Courts felt satisfied that the sample of milk had been taken out of the can of milk being carried by the petitioner for sale. In Rule A-11-01-01 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, it is provided that in case of cow's milk, percentage of fat prescribed is 4, while the percentage of solids not fat is 8.5. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of milk taken from the possession of the petitioner showed excess of fat by 0.5 per cent while it showed deficit of solids not fat by 0.5 per cent. The sample is sub-standard. The sample of cow's milk recovered does not conform to the standard prescribed under the Rules.