Crl.Rev.No.910 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.910 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.4.2009 Hari Pal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing his appeal and the orders of conviction and sentence dated 11.4.2007 and 19.4.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaithal, convicting the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Sh.Narain Dutt, Government Food Inspector (PW-1) while accompanied by Dr.S.S. Dahiya (PW-2) intercepted the petitioner on 30.9.1999 at about 7.45 am opposite Police Station Pundri. The petitioner was found in possession of 60 ltrs. of buffalo milk stored in three drums Crl.Rev.No.910 of 2009 2 for public sale. The Food Inspector, served a notice Ex.PA expressing his desire to take a sample of the buffalo milk. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls. of milk after payment of Rs.7.50 vide receipt Ex.PB. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and poured into three dry, clean and empty bottles. After following the prescribed procedure, the bottles were sealed, labelled and wrapped in accordance with the rules. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Karnal, Haryana, whereas the other bottles were deposited with the local health authority. The report of the Public Analyst Ex.PH disclosed that the milk contained 5.5% of milk fats and 8.3% of milk solids not fat against the minimum prescribed standards of 6% and 9% respectively. The Food Inspector, therefore, filed a complaint. The petitioner was summoned and after pre-charge evidence, charges were framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. Upon conclusion of the post-charge evidence and the recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Sessions Judge,Kaithal, dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions. Narain Dutt, Food Inspector PW-1 has deposed that the petitioner was found in possession of 60 ltrs. of buffalo milk, but Dr.S.S. Dahiya, PW-2, has deposed that the petitioner was in Crl.Rev.No.910 of 2009 3 possession of cow milk. This material contradiction, renders the prosecution case doubtful. It is further submitted that the Food Inspector has not deposed that he stirred the milk clockwise and anti clockwise with any instrument. There is, therefore, every likelihood that the sample sent for analysis was not homogenised. It is further submitted that as the violations of prescribed standards are nominal, the court below should have acquitted the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. The petitioner has been found guilty of selling milk that does not meet the standards prescribed under the Act. The argument that cows milk and not buffalo milk was recovered has been considered and dealt with by the courts below. The statement by Dr.S.S. Dahiya, PW-2, that cows milk was recovered is contrary to the receipt Ex.PB, which bears his signatures. The receipt specifically refers to the purchase of buffalo milk. It, therefore, belies comprehension as to how Dr.S.S. Dahiya could have deposed that cows milk was recovered. As regards the argument that the Food Inspector has not deposed that he stirred the milk clockwise and anti clockwise, suffice it to say that the Food Inspector has clearly deposed that the bulk of the milk was made homogenous before drawing the sample from the drum. His deposition is duly supported by Dr.S.S. Dahiya. The arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner, therefore, do not merit acceptance. It would be necessary to mention here that the sentence has already been reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal. As the impugned judgements do not suffer from any error of Crl.Rev.No.910 of 2009 4 jurisdiction or of law, I find no reason to accept the revision. Dismissed. 15.4.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE