State of Himachal Pradesh vs Prem Chand

Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal arises out Of the judgment of learned Sections judge, Hamirpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1985 decided on 8-1-1986.

The facts, in brief, are that the accused was intercepted by Shri T.S. Verma, Food Inspector, on 25-1-1983 at 8 a.m. near Bhota Chowk, Hamirpur, while carrying about 3 Kegs. Of buffalo milk. Sample was taken in the presence of Harnam Singh and Bidhi Chand by the purchase of 660 ml of milk against payment of Rs. 165. After undergoing the require mints under the Act and the Rules, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the same was found deficient in milk fat by 28% milk-solids-not-fat by 22% of the minimum pres-cribbed standard The result was, a complaint was filed against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, which sanded m the conviction of the accused. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge vides the impugned judgment, set aside the same and acquitted the accused. The State assails this judgment by. Tins appeal.

The only question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the learned Sessions Judge on point No. 1 is correct. This point relates to the taking of the sample and the question is whether the sample was taken by properly stirring the milk so that the same represents the homogeneous contents of the milk purchased for a proper analysis of the same. Three witnesses, besides the Food Inspector himself, appear to state on this point.

Shri T.S. Verma, Food Inspector (P. W. 1), has stated that the milk was stirred by putting it in another container while Hoshiar Singh (P.W. 3) has not stated a word about it. Shri Harnam Dass (P. W. 4) has stated that the milk was stirred with the help of a measuring pan. Stirring of milk is in issue in the present case and there is no cogent and convincing evidence on this aspect. Witnesses differ in their versions.

On the other aspect, the witnesses have also been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge on two grounds, namely, that they are not independent witnesses as admitted even by Shri T.S. Verma, Food Inspector (P. W. 1). The reasons given for not associating independent witnesses are also not convincing. The result, therefore, appears to be that the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) himself doubts the independence of these witnesses and the explanation given by him does not make them independent. They also speak different language on different aspects of the case thereby making things all the more doubtful and the conclusions of learned Sessions Judge qua them cannot be considered to be unreasonable.

On the other hand, the accused explains that he was carrying the milk for Tattan Chand as his son was sick. This fact, he states, was brought to the notice of the Food Inspector. Still, he was compelled to give the sample. It appears that this explanation of the accused is genuine. He was carrying only 3 Kg, milk at that time and his statement that he was not a milk vendor cannot be doubted in the circumstances.

The result, therefore, is, the appeal has no merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby cancelled.