AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.
This is a revision petition against the appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
The facts alleged against the petitioner are these;
The petitioner runs a shop of selling milk in village Darwa Union Territory, Chandigarh. On 23121980 the Food Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and found 10 kgs. of cow''s milk for sale at the shop of the petitioner. The Food Inspector gave him the requisite notice and purchased 660 millititres of cow''s milk for the purpose of analysis. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts, put in three bottles with preservative and these bottles were stopped, wrapped and sealed in the usual way.
The grouse of the petitioner is that the Food Inspector did not mention in his complaint the factum of his having stirred the milk in order to make it homogeneous before effecting purchase of the sample from the petitioner. It is maintained that it is only at the trial stage that such an averment was made. It is clear that no such fact was mentioned in the complaint and it is only in the statement of the Food Inspector that this fact was disclosed. The lower appellate Court, however, took the view that since the Food Inspector was not crossexamined for the purpose, there is a presumption that he had taken the sample properly, as all official acts are supposed to have been done correctly. Additionally, the accused petitioner having not laid his grouse thereto it his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was adversely commented upon.
This case appears to be squarely covered by the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jagan Nath, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 5 : 1986(2) PLR 446 as followed in The State of Haryana v. Rameshwar, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 216 : 1987(1) FAC 2 . While deciding today Criminal Revision No. 1082 of 1985 (Munshi Ram v. The State of Punjab) I have taken note of the aforesaid decisions. For the rule laid down in the aforesaid two Division Bench cases and for the reasoning given in Munshi Ram''s once (supra), this petition is allowed, for no latitude can be granted to the Food Inspector to make improvements in the case by mere mentioning about the fact that he had stirred the milk before taking sample, when such fact had not been mentioned in the complaint.
In these circumstances, extending benefit of doubt to the petitioner, he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.