Tara Chand vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—Tara Chand Petitioner challenges his conviction u/s 16(I)(a)(i) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as maintained by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Faridabad, on appeal as also the minimum sentence known to law imposed on him being 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- .

The prosecution allegation are that Raj Kumar, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. A.C. Hemraj vested the tea-shop of the accused-Petitioner and found him to be in possession of 9 Kgs. of cow''s milk lying in pateela for public sale. The usual samples were taken and a one of which when sent to the Public Analyst attracted the report of adulteration inasmuch as there was deficiency of milk solids not fat to the extent of 9% of the minimum prescribed standard. This led to the prosecution of the Petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

The only point strenuously urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is nothing on the record to show that before taking the sample of milk contained in the container was properly stirred either by the Food Inspector or by his associate. The Courts below, however, accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector at its face value that the contents of milk in the container had been made homogeneous and ruled out the defence plea that the milk was not stirred before the sample was taken. There appears to be substance the contention of the learned defence counsel. On this point the Food Inspector has no doubt stated in the trial court that the milk was made homogeneous before the same was purchased but in the complaint, Exhibit, P.E. it is how here mentioned that the milk was made homogeneous or that it was stirred by the Food Inspector himself. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cream accumulates on the top of the milk and if the milk is not properly stirred when the sample is taken, it is bound to be deficient in essential ingredients.

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no escaping the conclusion that the sample must have been taken by the Food Inspector without stirring milk in the container and without making it homogeneous, In view of this it must be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The result, therefore, is that the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and the sentence of the Petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.