Criminal Revision No.1818 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Jai Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL Present:- Shri Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Ritu Punj, D.A.G. Haryana. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This revision has been filed by Jai Singh son of Hari Ram against the judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide his judgment/order dated 11.11.1999, convicted Jai Singh under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further undergo S.I. for 1-1/2 months. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.2.1989 at 8.30 a.m. the petitioner was apprehended near Indri in the presence of Dr.B.S.Chaudhary, Criminal Revision No.1818 of 2001 -2- Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health), who was carrying cow's milk for public sale. Petitioner had 70 litres of cow's milk in his possession in three drums. The Government Food Inspector demanded a sample of cow's milk by giving him notice in writing on Form VI prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules. 660 mls. of cow milk was purchased, after mixing the whole contents properly being made uniform for analysis. Payment of Rs.3/- was made. The sample was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry clean empty bottles. Two drops of 402 formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were closed tightly and sealed with the seal of the Medical Officer. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in a strong thick paper. A paper slip bearing Code No.01247 along with the signatures of the Local Health Authority was pasted on each bottle from top to bottom. Each bottle was secured by means of a strong string and sealed with the seals of the Medical Officer and Food Inspector at the spot. Thumb impressions of the petitioner were obtained in such a manner, that both the paper slip and the wrapper of each sealed bottle carried the thumb impressions of the petitioner. One sealed bottle along with the memorandum in Form-VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed packet. The other two sealed bottles and the sample along with two copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Karnal. As per the certificate Ex.PD of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh the sample was found adulterated, since the milk solids fat was 22% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. Complaint Ex.PE was filed. Prosecution was launched and petitioner was summoned for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Harbhajan Singh Government Food Inspector PW-1, Dr.B.S.Chaudhary PW-2 and Baldev Raj PW-3. Criminal Revision No.1818 of 2001 -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record with their assistance. Some negligible or marginal deviation from the prescribed standard cannot be ignored. Adulteration of food affects the health of every citizen. The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. Adulteration though being in this case negligible, but still this will not entitle the petitioner to be acquitted. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was according to the rules prescribed. Receipt Ex.PB of Rs.3/- is on record when the milk was purchased. Though the amount of milk purchased was less, but the Public Analyst has not stated anywhere that it was insufficient for the purpose of analysis. Baldev Raj PW-3 has stated that when he took out the milk from the drum, milk was thoroughly mixed and stirred. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. It has come out that petitioner is a first offender. Revision is of the year 2001. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained. Sentence is modified to the extent already undergone. With the above modification of sentence, petition is dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) March 2, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO