Crl.Rev.No.3157/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.3157/2010 Date of decision:30.11.2010. Jagdish ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.SS Godara,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J. Instant revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.12.2008 passed by CJM,Fatehabad was upheld. In nut shell, Government Food Inspector (hereinafter referred to as the GFI) filed a complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner-Jagdish alleging therein that on 29.1.2003 at 10.30 am he inspected the premises of petitioner and found him in possession of 20 kilograms of cow milk for public sale. The GFI after completing necessary Crl.Rev.No.3157/2010 2 formalities and making the milk homogenous by mixing the whole contents of milk, purchased 750 ml of milk for analysis which was divided into three parts and sealed in three dry and clean empty bottles. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst,Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis, who submitted his report that the sample contained 1.6% of milk fat against the minimum specified limit of 4.0%. A copy of the report was sent to the petitioner. After completion of usual investigations, the complaint in question was filed. The learned CJM,Fatehabad, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence available on record held petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and convicted him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. Hence the present revision petition. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of taking sample, the milk was not made homogenous and stirred properly, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal has noticed that GFI Om Dhar Sanwal PW1 while filing complaint Ex.PE had specifically stated that the milk contained in the drum was stirred clockwise and anti-clockwise with a measure before Crl.Rev.No.3157/2010 3 lifting a sample. This fact was reiterated by GFI while making statement in the Court and corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Dr. Dharambir Sandhir. It was also found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that testimony of these two witnesses could not be shattered in any manner and as such there was no reason to disbelieve their version. It was further held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that once the sample was found containing 1.6% of milk fat against the minimum prescribed limit of 4%, then it is to be presumed that the food article was adulterated, as held in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana 2009(2) CRCR (Crl.)833. In view of the above,I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments which may call for interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 30.11.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge