Harjit Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Harjit Singh petitioner was convicted under S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in an exhaustive and lucid judgment had adverted to every contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and repelling the same, has maintained his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

The broad outline of the prosecution case is that on July 24, 1980, Dr. Kirpal Singh, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Harvant Singh Gill went to the shop of the petitioner and purchased 660 mls. of milk from him for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.50 P. as its price. The sample of milk sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to contain milk fat to the extent of 3.6% and milk solids not fat 9.7%. As the milk was deficient in milk fat, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner in accordance with law.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the testimony of Dr. Kirpal Singh, Food Inspector and Dr. Harvant Singh Gill. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that the sample of milk was not taken from him and that he was a fruit seller. He maintained that when the Food Inspector asked him to attest the documents, he did it accordingly. Karam Singh was examined by him in defence.

Mr. Shant, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there is no evidence on the record that the sample of milk has thoroughly shaken and the same was made homogeneous before its analysis by the Public Analyst. It was argued that the report of the Public Analyst was silent on the point and consequently the result arrived at could not be implicitly accepted and the benefit must necessarily go to the petitioner. Reliance was placed in this context on Sultan v. State of Haryana, 1981(2) FAC 116. It is unnecessary to examine the aforesaid argument in any detail because this point stainds concluded against the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case State of Haryana v. Harpat etc. Crl. Appeal No. 571/LBA of 1980, decided on March 3, 1982. Therein on this aspect the identical contention raised has been repelled and sultan''s case (supra) has been overruled.

It was next contend that because the analysis of the sample indicated that the fat contents therein were much less than the minimum prescribed standard and it was only solids, not fat, were higher than the prescribed standard, it could not be inferred that the milk was adulterated. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Jagat Ram v. State of Haryana 1981 C.L.R. 684 and Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, 1980(2) P.F.A. Cases 396. It is again unnecessary to examine this contention on principle because both the aforesaid judgments now stand overruled by Gopal Dutt v. The State of Haryana, Crl. Revision No. 1294 of 1981 decided on July 7, 1982. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Food Inspector did not make any attempt to join any independent witness from the locality and, therefore, the provisions of S. 10(7) of the Act were not complied and thus the petitioner had been prejudiced. The argument advanced by the petitioner''s counsel appears to be misconceived. In this case Dr. Kirpal Singh has categorically stated that he made attempt to join independent witnesses from the locality but none came forward. Be that as it may, in the present case the Food Inspector purchased sample of milk for analysis in the presence of Dr. Harvant Singh Gill. It cannot at all be said that Dr. Gill was an unreliable witness. He was a man of status and was not in any manner interested in making out a false case against the petitioner. The Food Inspector is no doubt a colleague of Dr. Gill but it cannot, at all be said that the latter was under any kind of influence of the Food Inspector. It cannot, therefore, be said that S. 10(7) of the Act has been breached. In this view I am fortified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Sahai, Crl. Appeal No. 654 of 1977, decided on August 27, 1979.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel referred to a case Budh Ram v. The State of Haryana, Crl. Revision No. 798 of 1980, which is stated to have been referred to a larger Bench by M.M. Punchhi J., on October 8, 1982. I am afraid the facts of that case relied on by the petitioner''s counsel are quite different and are not at all helpful to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised the identical contentions which stand ably repelled in the exhaustive Judgment of the Appellate Court. in the revisional Jurisdiction it suffices to say that I am in agreement thereof and the same is hereby affirmed.

The sentence imposed is already pegged at the statutory minimum. The revision petition is without merit and is here by dismissed.