Ram Chander vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

This revision petition has been directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated July 23, 1981, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for the sale of adulterated milk.

On 27th November, 1979, at about 7.30 p.m. R.D. Goyal, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. O.P. Sarwal and one Lal Chand (witness since given up), was present in the Canal Colony, Hissar, when the accusedpetitioner came there carrying 20 kgs. of cow''s milk for sale contained in a drum. The Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 660 mls. of cow''s milk from him against payment of Rs. 1.30 P. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated. Vide report, Exhibit P.D., it was reported that the milk solids not fat were deficient to the tune of 16.5% of the minimum prescribed standard. On the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.000/

The case against the petitioner rests on the testimony of R.D. Goel and Dr. O.P. Sarwal. The petitioner rather took a vaccilating plea and examined himself in defence. The trial Court unhesitatingly found that the defence pleas taken by the petitioner was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand and the Appellate Court has affirmed the said findings.

The solitary arguments laboured with a little persistence by Mr. D.S. Bali, in support of the revision petition is that there is noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2) of the Act and as such the proceedings are vitiated. This argument, though appears to be ingenious, but on consideration of the matter, does not hold water. It is borne out from the testimony of Dr. O.P. Sarwal that he had sent the copy of the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D., and the copy of the letter, Exhibit P.F., which contained his signatures to the accused vide registered A.D. and the same was received back, which is Exhibit P.G. The copy of the letter Exhibit P.F., shows that the Local Health Authority had sent copy of the report of the Public Analyst alongwith the original letter informing the accused that the complaint had been launched in the Court and the same was fixed for 2.2.1980 and that if he so desired he could make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt to get the sample of article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Postal receipt Exhibit P.H. shows that such a letter was sent to the accused on 10.1.1980. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act were not complied with. I would, therefore reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel then raised the other arguments which were earlier urged before the Appellate Court and which have been elaborately dealt with. To my mind it would be totally wasteful to treat the same ground over again. Suffices to mention that I would endorse in toto the reasoning and the finding of the Appellate Court.

The sentence imposed on the petitioner is already pegged at the statutory minimum. The revision petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed.