Sat Pal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.10.1988 at 8.00 a.m. Om Parkash, Food Inspector, who was authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors and to have them analysed from Public Analyst, Haryana, intercepted Satpal accused in Krishna Colony, Bhiwani. At that time, Satpal was carrying 10 kg. of cow milk in a drum for sale to the Public. Om Parkash disclosed his identity to the accused that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors and to have them analysed. After disclosing his identity, he served notice Ex.PA on Form No. VI indicating his intention to have sample of cow milk from him for having the same analysed. He mixed the milk thoroughly in the drum and made it homogeneous and then purchased 740 ml/gms of cow milk from him on payment of Rs. 4.50 to him. He divided that milk in 3 equal parts and put each part in a separate dry, clean and empty bottle. He added 20 drops of 40% Formalin in each part as preservative. He stoppered tightly each bottle and sealed it with the seal of Medical Officer. Bottles were labelled and wrapped in strong thick paper. Ends of paper were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing Code No. BWN C/FI1/820 and the signatures of Local Health Authority, Bhiwani was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of strong twine and sealed with the seal of Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Signature of the accused was obtained in such a manner that part of the signatures appeared on the paper slip and part on the wrapper of the bottle.

One sealed bottle along with Memorandum in Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana for analysis in a sealed packet through Railway parcel. Other two sealed bottles alongwith two copies of memo in Form No. VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority on 4.10.1988 vide No. PK/23/88 in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum in Form No. VII and specimen impression of the seal used in sealing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, separately vide registered post. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found deficient in milk solids not fat content to the extent of 6% of the minimum prescribed standard. The Public Analyst thus found the sample to be adulterated. One copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent by the Local Health Authority to the accused together with a forwarding letter informing him that he could have the sample reanalyzed from the Central Food Laboratory.

Complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against Sat Pal.

On the conclusion of the trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani found the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him and sentenced him thereunder to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one month vide order dated 13/20.8.1996.

Sat Pal went in appeal to the Court of Session challenging the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide the order (ibid).

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.11.1998.

Aggrieved from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, dated 16.11.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, Sat Pal has come up in revision to this Court.

I have heard the learned for the petitioner, learned AAG, Haryana and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was conveyed letter Ex.D1 by the Local Health Authority, Bhiwani, which was signed by Dr. R.N. Goyal PW2 according to which, there was no element of adulteration found in the sample of cow milk alleged to have been taken from him on 4.10.1998 and if that was so, the Public Analyst''s report Ex.PG showing the sample to be adulterated should not be taken note of.

It was next submitted that the report of Public Analyst Ex.PG was not sent to the accusedpetitioner at all. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the statement of Sh. Surinder Kumar PW3 who stated that A.D. Ex.PH does not bear postal stamp nor any No. of registered post has been mentioned on it. On the stamp of the postal authority, date is not legible. Ex.PH does not bear postal receipt No. It was submitted that if the report of the Public Analyst Ex.PG had been delivered to the accused, A.D. must have borne his signatures. It was submitted that in the absence of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was deprived of the right granted to him under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for reanalysis of the sample. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the A.D. and the postal receipt bear no date, it was not possible to hold that the report of the Public Analyst was handed over to the accused on 26.12.1988. As per version of the accused, he received letter Ex.D1 on 1.12.1988. As per Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the report of the Public Analyst was required to be sent by the Local Health Authority within 45 days of its receipt. On 4.11.1988, the sample was analysed and the report was sent to the Local Health Authority, Bhiwani on 26.12.1988 and the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused, which was received by the accused on 28.12.1988. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, there was of deficiency in milk fat content. There was deficiency in milk solids not fat content and that too only to the extent of 6%. In this case, the sample was containing more of milk fat content. It cannot be said that milk was thoroughly stirred and homogenised. It was submitted that nonstirring of milk and non homogenising it properly gave rise to more of milk fat content and less of milk solids not fat content in the sample. In State of Punjab v. Gian Chand, 1991(3) RCR 278 , it was held that where the milk fat content was found in excess of the minimum prescribed standard and the deficiency in milk solids fat content was insignificant, it cannot be said that milk was adulterated. Might be that the milch cattle from the udders of which milk was drawn was not properly fed. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 432, the following observations are attracted in this case :

"The percentage of milk fat and nonfatty milk solids depends on the proper feeding and the health of the animal. There is a problem of non availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. The quantity of food given to an animal affects to certain extent, the quantity and quality of milk produced by it. Apparently it is not possible to take up nonfatty solids from milk without reducing or affecting the fat contents. As such in this case it cannot be said that the accusedpetitioner intentionally effected adulteration in the milk."

For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was unjustifiably convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. So this revision is accepted and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.

Revision allowed.