Angrej Singh vs State

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Angrej Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1955 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Its. 1000/. in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two month by order dated 15.3.1985. Mr. T. P. Garg Sessions Judge, find in an appeal filed by the petitioner reduced the sentence from nine Months to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine vide his order dated 27.5.1995. Feeling aggrieved, he had filed this revision

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Mr. Nand Lal Sammir, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the milk carried by the petitioner was not meant for sale. In fact it was brought for the marriage of the son of Nahnu Ram DW 1. This plea of the petitioner has been dealt with by both the Courts below and sound reasons have been given for discarding the same. I endorse the reasons gives by the Courts below for rejecting this plea of the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that the milk was not stirred, as it was not mentioned in the complaint that at the time of seizure of the sample, the milk was stirred and made homogeneous. It is in the evidence of both the P. Ws. that the milk was stirred. The statements of the PWs on this point get some corroboration from the fact that in this case even milk fat was deficient apart from the deficiency in the milk solids not fat. The result of non stirring of the milk expected is that due to stagnation. fat accummulates at the top and milk solids settle at the bottom and if the milk is not stirred properly, deficiency in the milk solids clearly is the result. But in this case there is deficiency both in a milk fat and in milk solids not fit. In the circumstances of the case, the testimony of the PWs. when they say that the milk was stirred cannot be discarded. Both the courts below have accepted their testimony and. I do not see any justification to differ with their conclusion.

As there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the conviction of the petitioner, this revision is dismissed.