IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.896 of 2000 Date of decision: March 22, 2010 Ram Mehar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S. R. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J As exposed from report of the Public Analyst, the sample of milk, taken from the accused, was found to be deficient in milk fat by 2.5% and milk solids not fat by 4.6%. A complaint was filed by the Government Food Inspector against the accused, consequently, he was tried and eventually judgment dated 5.9.1998, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (herein referred as 'the Act'). The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.7.2000 dismissed his appeal. The facts as culled out from complaint are that on 28.4.1989 at about 8.05 a.m. C.L. Sikari Government Food Inspector along with Dr. Baldev Dutta and Siri Ram intercepted the accused and after disclosing their identity purchased 750 mls of cow milk out of the drum containing 20 litres of cow milk and distributed the same in three equal parts after adding 20 drops of the formalin 40% in each bottle. The bottles were labeled, stoppered and wrapped with the thick paper signed by the Local Health Authority, Sonepat. The bottles were sealed with distinct seals at the spot and L.T.I. of the accused was also obtained there upon. One of the sealed bottle along with memo on Form No.VII and VIII were sent separately through registered parcels and other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Sonepat in a sealed box. The report of the Public Criminal Revision No.896 of 2000 -2- Analyst when received disclosed the following percentage of the contents :- Milk Fat % 3.9% Milk Solids not fat % 46% Starch Test Negative Sucrose Test Negative The milk fat was found deficient by 2.5% and milk solids not fat were found 46% of the minimum prescribed standard. In pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined C.L. Sikri GFI and Ashok Kumar (PW2). The accused was charged under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine the witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, the accused examined Rajbeer (DW1). On appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. C.L. Sikri (PW1) has given minute details of the occurrence while stating that he after stirring the milk thoroughly and making the same homogenous purchased 750 mls of milk and divided into three equal parts after putting the required preservatives, poured the same in three dry clean bottles after adding the required preservatives. The bottle stoppers were put on the bottles and the same were wrapped with the thick paper and the accused also affixed his thumb impression on the bottles. He has also stated that the paper slip of the Local Health Authority was also affixed. He withstood the test of cross examination. His testimony could not be shattered in any manner. Ashok Kumar Clerk, Local Health Authority, Sonepat has proved that on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the same was forwarded to the accused along with forwarding letter Ex.PW2/A. He has proved the postal receipt Ex.PW2/2. The report was issued to the Criminal Revision No.896 of 2000 -3- accused on the same address which was disclosed by him at the time of taking the sample by the Government Food Inspector. Thus, when once a report is sent by registered post against proper receipt, on the address given by the accused himself then presumption would be that the documents reached at the disclosed place in the ordinary course of nature unless it is proved otherwise. Thus, no inference could be drawn that the accused was not provided an opportunity to apply for sending the sample for re-analysis. Even no application was moved by the accused showing his intention to get the sample re-analyzed. So far as the stirring of the milk is concerned, C.L. Sikri (PW1) Government Food Inspector has categorically stated that milk was stirred and made homogenous before taking the sample and he mentioned about the same in the memo Ex.PC prepared at the spot. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the sample was not made homogenous, then in that eventuality either milk fat percentage and milk solids not fat should have been higher than the minimum prescribed standard. But, in the present case, both the contents are lessor than the prescribed standard. As such, this argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not prevail. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the sample was taken long back, therefore, keeping in view the longevity of the proceedings and the agony which he had faced during the years the revision petition remained pending, some leniency should be extended to him. Having pondered over this argument, the contention is not approved as the accused was not selling the milk but he was selling the water after adding some milk contents therein, thus, cheating thousands of people economically as well as by causing physical harm to them. As such, he does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. March 22, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge