The Food Inspector must properly stir and homogenise milk before taking a sample to ensure that the sample is representative of the whole quantity of milk from which it is taken.

M.L. Singhal, J. - The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.10.1983 at 1.00 P.M. Shri Balwan Singh, Government Food Inspector, inspected the business premises of Hans Raj accused situated in the courts campus at Jhajjar. At that time, Dr. (Mrs.) J. Chanda and one Ram Parkash were with him. 10 lts. of unindicated milk contained in a patila was lying in the business premises of Hans Raj for sale to the public. Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Hans Raj accused that he was Government Food Inspector authorised to seize samples of food-stuff from their vendors and to have the same analysed. He served notice Ex. PA on the accused in Form No. VI which was expressive of this intention on his part that he would seize sample of unindicated milk from him with a view to have it analysed from the Public Analyst. He asked him to supply him 660 mls. of milk. He first stirred milk thoroughly and then made it homogeneous and then purchased 660 mls. from him on payment of Rs. 2/- to him vide receipt Ex. PB. Milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts. He put each part in dry and clean bottles. Two drops of formalin 40% per 25 mls. of milk was added in each bottle. Bottles were made into sealed parcels at the spot in due observance of the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. One sealed bottle alongwith memo in Form VI put in a sealed box was sent to the Public Analyst through railway parcel. Remaining two sealed sample bottles put in sealed boxes with Form No. 7 were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Copy of the memo and specimen impression of seal used in sealing the samples was sent separately to the Public Analyst vide Receipt No. 4919 dated 21.10.1983. Public Analyst analysed the sample and recorded report Ex. PD. On receipt of report Ex. PD from the Public Analyst, the Local Health Authority, Rohtak forwarded its one copy to the Food Inspector with a view to his initiating complaint. Local Health Authority sent one copy of their report alongwith forwarding memo to the accused calling upon him to have it reanalysed if he so wished.

2. At the request of the accused, the other part of the sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for analysis who too found the sample as not conforming to the standards of buffalo milk as laid down in the Act/Rules.

3. Accused was charged under Sections 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.3.1985. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar found the charge proved against the accused, vide order dated 18.2.1987. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

4. Feeling that he has been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate, Hans Raj went in appeal to the Court of Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.11.1987, thus, maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Magistrate.

5. Still not satisfied, Hans Raj has sought to try his luck over again and has knocked the door of this Court through this revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.G., Haryana and have gone through the record.

7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the sample was allegedly taken, he did not make any enquiry as to the nature to milk i.e. whether it was cow milk or buffalo milk and, therefore, there was no reason to suppose that it was unindicated milk and should conform to the standards of buffalo milk. He submitted that if there was such an omission on the part of the Food Inspector, it has to be taken that it was cow milk and if it wa