of milk was companylected from the companytainer in which the respondent was carrying the milk and the same was sent to Public Analyst who in his report found the sample to be deficient in milk solid to the extent of 5 of the prescribed minimum standard.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows On 6th of July, 1988 when respondent was carrying 20 liters of companys milk in a bicycle he was intercepted by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Narnaul and a sample of 750 ml.
In the trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 Dr.S.P.Singh and PW 2 Megh Nath, the Food Inspector, in support of its case.
On receipt of the said report, a companyy of the same was sent to the respondent by registered post but the same was returned by the postal endorsement refused to accept.
He also found solid fat as required under the law deficient.
P.C. that he was innocent.
On the basis of the investigation made on 25th of August, 1988 a companyplaint under section 16 i a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed against the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 22nd of January, 2003, whereby the High Court set aside the judgments of the two companyrts below in a revision petition filed by the respondent herein.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
No.5135 of 2003 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The trial companyrt as per its order dated 18th February, 1989 found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 16 i a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and after hearing the respondent on the quantum of sentence taking into companysideration he had numberprevious companyviction and had three small kids to support, awarded the minimum prescribed sentence under the Act that is to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ in default of payment of fine the accused was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Being aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Narnaul who by his order dated 28th of March, 1990 companycurred with the finding of the trial companyrt and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence.
