After that, in the presence of public witness Radhey Shyam PW3, the companyplainant purchased 660 ml milk for 1 Rupee 65 paise and gave the money to the appellant and took thumb impression of the witness.
The prosecution examined the companyplainant R.C. Kansal as PW1, Jaipal Singh clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer as PW2 and Radhey Shyam, as PW3.
The Chief Medical Officer Sri.
Thumb impression of the Appellant was taken on the labels posted on the bottles.
The purchased milk was divided equally and filled in 3 clean bottles.
On demanding license from Appellant, it was revealed that he did number have any license for selling the milk.
7 1 /16 1 a i of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
One sample was sent to Public Analyst Lucknow on 17.10.1979.
PW2 stated in his statement that on 07.04.1980, he sent the report of the Public Analyst to the Appellant by registered post.
The rest of the 2 bottles were submitted before the office of Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad.
The sample was thus found to be adultered.
The appellant, in his turn, pleaded number guilty.
After that, the companyplainant prepared the companyplaint Exhibit A8 and produced it before the companyrt on 18.03.1980, whereupon the companyrt took companynizance and criminal case No.
4 dated 15.11.1979 with the finding that the sample of buffalo milk was deficient by 12 in milk fat and 27 in numberfatty solids.
The companyplainant submitted an application along with relevant material seeking companysent for prosecution.
Regarding PW3 being hostile, the trial companyrt opined that according to the companyplainant, sample has been taken in the presence of independent witness.
Sri R.C. Kansal, Food Inspector filed a companyplaint stating that on 16.10.1979, at about 800 AM, while he was posted as Food Inspector at Primary Health Centre Bhojpur, he found the appellant taking buffalo milk for sale on the Acchapalgarhi Road, Pilakhuwa, District Ghaziabad.
Y.K. Bhushan granted companysent for prosecution under Section 7 1 16 1 a i of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide order dated 06.02.1980.
The appellant herein then filed Criminal Revision No.
Regarding companypliance of provisions of Sec.
The bottles were sealed in accordance with the rules and labels were pasted on them.
787 of 1986 was registered.
The Public Analyst received the sample on 18.10.1979, who prepared report Ex.
He however did number produce any evidence in defence.
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
PW3, who is an independent witness, was declared hostile by the prosecution.
The instant appeal arises from the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2019.07.31 170936 IST Reason Revision No.
1595 of 1988 in and by which the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant thereby affirming the companyviction of the appellant under Sec.
Suspecting adulteration in the milk, companyplainant prepared a numberice Ex.6 and gave a companyy to the appellant.
The Public Analysts report was forwarded to the Appellant by registered post on 07.04.1980.
