RAMESWAR SINGH Vs. DR. L.S. PHUKAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO short questions which arise for consideration in this revision are (a) whether the Petitioner made the alleged admission before P.W. 1, Food Inspector, that Ram Gulam Mandal, a co -accused, since absconded, from whom the adulterated sample of milk was taken, was his servant and that the milk belonged to the Petitioner ? and (b) whether the conviction has been based on legal evidence ? The circumstances which led to the conviction of the accused may be stated briefly.

(2.) ON 31.8.71 accused Ram Gulam Maadal, since absconded was taken to the Municipal Office by one Giridhar Bora along with milk meant to be supplied to the Civil Hospital, Jorhat. The milk was supplied by contractors of the Civil Hospital from his custody, a sample of the milk was taken to be analyzed by the Public Analyst of the Government of Assam, (SIC) by giving notice in form No. VI, Ext, 1, to him in absence of witness P.W. 2, Babula Nath Kataki and others. Except for the price of the sample of milk was also given to him in presence of these witnesses marked Ext, 2. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner subsequently came to the Municipal Office. It was alleged that Petitioner admitted before the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, Dr. L.S. (SIC), that the accused Ram Gulam Mandal was his servant and that the milk belonged to him. His signatures were obtained on the notice. Ext. 1 and Receipt Ext. 2, On both these exhibits against his name, the word 'master' in English was found written. The milk was a buffalo milk containing 61% of were reported by public Analyst, Ex. 4 and was adulterated as defined in Section 2(l) (a) or (b) or (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (SIC) before whom the Petitioner was (SIC), held him guilty of the Offence with which he was charged. He was convicted under Section 7 rend with Sections 16(1)(a)(1) of the Act on the basis of the admission above and (SIC) him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of fine Rs. 1,000/ - and in default, to a further (SIC)imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction end sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

(3.) IN this case, both the court a below based the conviction on the prosecution case, as unfolded through the testimony of P.W. 1, Dr. L.S. Phukan, Food Inspector. I have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses with the assistance of the learned Counsel of both the parties. This witness P.W. 1 in his examination -in -chief, stated that both of them were brought to the Municipal Office on 31.8.81, and after giving notice to then in Form No. VI, Ext. I, he took sample of the milk for analysis by Public Analyst and receipt was also given, Ext. 2 to both of them. The witness also deposed that the Petitioner told him that the milk belonged to him and that Ram Gulam Madan was his servant.