Kuldip Kumar vs State of Punjab

S.C. Dutta, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(i)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. As against this order, an appeal was taken to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who by judgment and order, dated 16.8.1986 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.7.1983 at about 10.20 a.m. Dr. Bhagwan Dass Mittal, Food Inspector, found the accused Kuldip Kumar carrying about five kilograms of cow''s milk in a drum. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of cow''s milk on payment of Rs. 2/ as sample for analysis. The milk, thus, purchased was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. After necessary formalities, the bottles were packed and sealed. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. So, on completion of investigation, the accused was put to trial.

The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, while the defence has examined two witnesses in support of his contention that the milk was not for sale but was for Bhog of Path, which was to be held on that date at the house of his uncle Gopal Chand. This part of the case of the defence was disbelieved by the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. The judgment of the trial Court as well as that of the lower appellate Court were assailed on variety of grounds.

In the first place, it has been contended that the petitioner was not a vendor of milk. He was carrying the milk to the residence of his uncle on that date for Bhog of Path. In this respect, he has brought on record one invitation card to show that there was, in fact, a religious ceremony at the residence of his uncle, Gopal Chand on that date. His case throughout was that the milk which he was carrying on that date was not meant for sale, but was for use in a religious function. It has been elicited from the prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was not carrying any measuring pot. The quantity of milk was only five kgs. and it was being carried in a small container. There were 56 persons, who were present at the time of seizure of milk from the petitioner, but none of them volunteered to become a witness to the incident of sale of milk to the Food Inspector. The prosecution does not bring any of those witnesses to say that the milk carried by the petitioner was meant for sale. In the circumstances, it is difficult to disbelieve the defence version of the case.

Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submits that there is discrepancy in between the report of the Public Analyst and that of the Central Food Laboratory with regard to the extent of adulteration. He submits that the extent of adulteration was not put to the petitioner during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him this is fatal and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted on this score alone. A plain reading of the relevant question put to the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure discloses that there was no such compliance. In fact, nothing was asked to the petitioner about the extent of alleged adulteration. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained on this ground as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the speedy trial is the essence of justice and the inordinate delay in the disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner. So, it is a fit case where the petitioner should not be sent to jail at this stage and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period during which he remained confined in jail. In this case, the sample was taken on 27.7.1983 and the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner on 18.11.1985. The appeal therefrom was disposed of on 16.8.1986. The appeal is pending in this Court since October, 1986. Therefore long 111/2 years have passed since the incident took place. During all these years, the petitioner was facing this litigation and as such, he has undergone immense mental harassment. The quantity of milk, which he was carrying, was only five Kgs. The case of the petitioner throughout was that it was not meant for sale, but was for use in a religious function. It has not been proved clearly that the petitioner is vendor of milk. For the possession of 5 Kgs. of adulterated milk, he has to face the ordeal of trial for the last about 12 years. So, in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Courts below are not sustainable. Accordingly, I accept this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge.