The court established that non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act invalidates a conviction, emphasizing the importance of independent witness testimony and proper evidence collection.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatput, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, Bharatppur, for convicting the petitioner under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954') has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court for convicting the petitioner under the aforesaid offences and awarding sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been confirmed with three months simple imprisonment in case of default.

2. It is submitted that one criminal compliant (P-14) was filed by the Food Inspector, Circle Deeg, in the Court of ACJM, Deeg, on 03.07.1996 alleging the facts that on 17.04.1996 at around 9:30 a.m., when he was going with his assistant near Goverdhan Dairy, he found that one milkman was coming with milk tank. The Food Inspector checked the milk of the milkman, on the suspicion that the milk was adulterated and collected 750 gms of milk. He prepared three samples in three separate bottles after adding formalin for preservation. After sealing the same, it was sent for Public Analysis Laboratory for examination, where from he received information with regard to the milk being adulterated. Hence, after obtaining a sanction from the Competent Authority, a criminal complaint for committing offences under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954 was filed against the petitioner.

3. After taking pre-charge evidence, charge under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954 was framed against the petitioner, who denied the charges and requested for trying the same.

4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1-Giriraj Prasad (Food Inspector), PW2-Mukesh, PW3-Sohan Lal as prosecution witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-petitioner were taken, who denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution, however, did not produce any evidence in defence. Therefore, arguments were heard and vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2001, after convicting the petitioner for committing offence under Section 7 (i)/16 of the Act of 1954, sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and in case of failure of depositing the fine, an additional sentence of three months was to be under gone by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner challenged a judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 by way of filing appeal in the Court of Additional Session Judge No.1, Deeg, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.2007 and judgment and order dated 04.12.2001 passed by the trial Court was confirmed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts below have totally misappreciated the evidence and provisions of the Act of 1954 and have convicted the petitioner on the basis of misappreciation of evidence and misconstruction of mandatory provisions of law. It was submitted that the sample was not duly collected by the Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1954. It was further submitted that even the report of testing by the Public Health Laboratory, Bharatpur (Exhibit-P8) did not suggest any adulteration whatsoever in the milk which was brought for sale by the petitioner. It is submitted