Mangal Dass vs State of Haryana

M.M. Puchhi, J. (Oral)

On March 13, 1982, the petitioner was found in possession of 25 KGs of cow milk meant for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 Mls of milk and divided the same into three parts. The Public Analyst examined one of them and opined that milk fat percentage was 3.4 and milk solids not fat percentage 8.8. Thus, milk solids not fat were more in percentage but milk fat was less in percentage. The view of the learned trial Judge was that it was not a case of addition of water to the milk but some fat appeared to have been extracted from the milk disturbing the percentage of constituents. He, thus, convicted the petitioner under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner''s appeal before the appellate Court was dismissed but the sentence was brought to the minimum, being six months'' rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/.

The only point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable in view of Ram Chander State of Haryana, 1982(2) F.A.C. 331. It is contended that the examination of the accused under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not conducted in a manner to put the report of the Public Analyst in an intelligible way to the petitioner, so that he could personally explain the circumstance of adulteration appearing in evidence against him. It has further been urged that the fact that the accused stood apprised that there was a report of the Public Analyst on the record, was not by itself sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. Attention was also invited to a number of decisions of this Court in which Ram Chandar''s case (supra) has been followed.

A plain reading of the relevant question put to the petitioner in his examination under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, disclose that there was no such compliance. In one long winding question, the factum of the report of the Public Analyst disclosing that there was adulteration, the complaint having been lodged by the Food Inspector, and a copy of the report having been sent to him within the statutory time, was put to him, which he denied. The extent of adulteration was not put to him to explain. Thus, on the strength of Ram Chandar''s case (supra) the conviction of the petitioner is unsustainable.

According this petition succeeds and the accused is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.