Chain Sukh vs State of Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner since dead, was concurrently convicted by the two Courts under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling cows milk which was found to deficient to the extent of 11% milk solid not fat. This conviction is challenged primarily on the ground that at the time of taking the sample by Food Inspector the milk was not stirred and thus made homogeneous. This omission on the part of the Food Inspector has led to the unsatisfactory analysis by the Public Analyst. The learned counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of the Court in The State of Haryana v. Rameshwar, 1987 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 216 1987(1) F.A.C. 2. to contend that where an omission above his taken place, the accused is entitled to acquittal even if during the trial the Food Inspector made art improvement and stated that before taking the sample he had stirred the milk. A perusal of the above noted judgment clearly indicates that the submission of the petitioner''s learned counsel is well merited.

For all the reasons detailed in the above noted judgment, I accept this petition and set aside the impugned judgements. The net result is that the petitioner stands acquitted though after death and the fine paid by him be refunded to his legal representatives.