Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that Chawla (PW 1) did not possess the requisite training in Food Inspection and sampling work as provided under the Second Proviso to Rule 8(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.
5. A perusal of the evidence of Chawla (PW 1) would indicate that he had not undergone the requisite training for three months to undertake Food Inspection and Sampling Work. It is, thus, evident that the mandatory requirement of law for taking sample of the milk was not done by a competent Food Inspector. The conviction and sentence of the applicant, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside and revision is allowed.
In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
(Before N.P. Singh, J.)
Gendalal Vs State of M.P.
Cri. Revision No. 307 of 1993
Decided on February 4, 1997
Citation: 1997 SCC OnLine MP 495 : 1998 FAJ 301 : 1997 FAJ 301
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.P. Singh, J.:— This revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.5.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Criminal Appeal No. 54/92 affirming the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore in Criminal Case No. 784/87 for the offence under Section 7/16 (1-A) 1 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 awarding sentence of R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months.
2. On 30.6.1987, whilst the applicant was going to sell mixed milk of buffalo and cow milk, he was stopped by the complainant Chawla (PW1). and purchased 600 ml. of milk for Rs. 2, after disclosing his identity, for the purpose of analysis.
3. After mixing, necessary preservative, he divided the milk in three parts. After observing necessary formalities, two samples were sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, on examination of the sample, found the milk to be adulterated and below the prescribed standard. After obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, prosecution was launched against the applicant in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore who on consideration of the evidence, convicted the applicant and sentenced him as mentioned above. As against that the applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sehore, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 18.5.1993.
4. Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that Chawla (PW 1) did not possess the requisite training in Food Inspection and sampling work as provided under the Second Proviso to Rule 8(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.
5. A perusal of the evidence of Chawla (PW 1) would indicate that he had not undergone the requisite training for three months to undertake Food Inspection and Sampling Work. It is, thus, evident that the mandatory requirement of law for taking sample of the milk was not done by a competent Food Inspector. The conviction and sentence of the applicant, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside and revision is allowed. The fine deposited by the applicant be refunded. His bail bonds are discharged.
6. Revision allowed
No comments:
Post a Comment