Parhlad vs State of Haryana

Ujagar Singh, J.

The petitioner herein has challenged his conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In default of payment of fine, he was awarded 2 months, rigorous imprisonment. Appeal against his conviction and sentence was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 6.11.1987.

The facts leading to the conviction are that on 21.3.1986, at about 10.30 a.m., Shri A.N. Sharma, Government Food Inspector raided the premises of the petitioner at Jullana 10 litres of cow''s milk was found in a vessel. The Govt. Food Inspector gave notice Ex. PA and thereafter purchased 560 ml. of that milk after properly mixing the whole and making it uniform for analysis. An amount of Rs. 2/ was paid vide receipt Ex. PB. The sample was divided in 3 equal parts. Each part was bottled in dried, clean and empty bottle. Two drops of 40% formalin, per 25 ml. were added as preservative in each of the bottles. The bottles were duly stoppered and sealed on the neck with the seal of the Medical Officer who was accompanying the Govt. Food Inspector. The ends of the papers were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No. JD Dy(H) FII292 and signature of local Health Authority. Jind was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of a strong twine and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer and the Food Inspector at the spot, signatures of the petitioner were also obtained in a manner that both the paper slips and the wrapper of each bottle carried a part of his signatures. One sealed bottle, alongwith memorandum in form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis through Railway parcel. The other two sealed bottles of sample, alongwith 2 copies of memo in form VI were deposited with the local Health Authority, Jind. A copy of the memorandum and specimen of seal were sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post. Report Ex. PD of the Public Analyst indicated milk solids not fat to be 7% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard.

After issuing notice under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial Court examined PW 1 Shri A.N. Sharma, Govt Food Inspector; PW 2 Dr. S.N. Verma, Medical Officer and PW 3 Fateh Singh, a clerk from the office of the local Health Authority, Jind. At the time of taking the sample, one Rama Nand was joined as an eyewitness, but was given up as having been won over during trial. Under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the facts and added that he had a teastall and that the milk was sealed when sample was taken without stirring it properly. Said Rama Nand was examined by defence as DW1. After appreciating the evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

It may be mentioned that at the instance of the petitioner, second sample bottle was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory and certificate Ex. PH was obtained. This certificate indicated milk solids not fat was below the minimum specified limit of 8.5%.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that petitioner was rightly convicted, but he has submitted that petitioner is a youngman of about 22/23 years of age, with no bad antecedent and he urged that the petitioner has already undergone about 21/2 months of imprisonment and the sentence may be reduced to imprisonment for six months.

I have considered this aspect of the case and am of the view that in this case, apart from the age and with no bad antecedents, the certificate given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory does not indicate the actual deficiency in solids not fat. It simply states that it was below the standard of 8.5%. This certificate supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and in this situation, the deficiency in solids not fat could be any figure less than 7%.

In view of the above circumstances, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months and instead enhance the amount of fine to Rs. 2,000/ in place of Rs. 1,000/. With this modification, this revision is partly accepted and the petitioner shall stand sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.