Criminal Revision No.1975 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1975 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : November 10, 2010 Bhagel Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing the appeal of the accused – petitioner Bhagal Singh (herein referred as `the accused') against the judgment dated 28.11.2000 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity `the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In nutshell, the facts are that at about 10.40 AM, Manohar Lal, Government Food Inspector, Pehowa (hereinafter referred as `the Food Inspector') accompanied by Dr.Raj Kumar intercepted the accused, who was Criminal Revision No.1975 of 2003(O&M) [2] possessing 80 kilograms of cow milk for public sale; purchased 750 millilitres of milk on payment of Rs.4.50 paise; it was made homogeneous and divided into three equal parts; put in three dry & clean bottles after adding the required preservatives and thereafter, all the sample bottles were sealed. One sample bottle was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Punjab with Form No.7 separately. On receipt of the report, the accused was provided an opportunity to send the sample for re-analysis. On sending the sample for re-analysis, again, the sample was found containing fat 2.7% against prescribed standard of 4% and milk solids not fact being 10% against the prescribed standard of 7.5%. Having found the sample to be adulterated, the complaint was filed. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused was provided opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. He was also provided an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. As regards the contention that the milk was not properly stirred and made homogeneous, the same lacks merit. The factum with regard to stirring the milk has been specifically mentioned in the complaint Ex.PE, Besides, Dr.Raj Kumar has also specifically testified that contents of milk were properly mixed, churned and, thus, was made fit for analysis. No meaningful cross-examination was conducted to challenge this point. Even no cross-examination was made over Dr.Raj Kumar (PW2), who had Criminal Revision No.1975 of 2003(O&M) [3] accompanied the Food Inspector (PW1) at the time of sampling to contend that the sample was not made homogeneous before transferring it in three bottles. There is no such rule of law, but it is a matter of prudence to stir the milk before putting the same into the bottles for the purpose of analysis. No such specific procedure has been provided as to how the milk is to be stirred, as such in the absence of disclosure of such procedure, the report is not vitiated. Since the Food Inspector as well as the doctor accompanying him have specifically and consistently stated that the milk was properly stirred and made homogeneous, this plea of proper sampling cannot be raised at this revisional stage. The accused was also provided proper opportunity to get the sample re-analyzed under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, now this plea is also not available to him. All the points have been touched by both the courts below specifically and answered against the accused. No such illegality, much less irregularity has been pointed out, which may come at the rescue of the accused and enable this Court to interfere with the impugned judgments. Faced with the above situation, counsel for the accused has urged to extend some leniency in the quantum of sentence. In this connection, keeping in view the fact that the sample was drawn on 24.11.1995 and the accused has already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings, it would be in the fitness of things, if some reduction in sentence is made. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, reducing it to three months, without any alteration in the Criminal Revision No.1975 of 2003(O&M) [4] sentence of fine. November 10, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE