Law:

Section:

Punjab Pure Food Act (VIII of 1929), S. 12(1)(a)-Pouring of adulterated milk in cup of tea meant for sale-Amounts to selling of adulterated milk.   JUDGMENT   SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.-This Is an appeal by the State against the order of Mr. Jamil Asghar, Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 22nd of January 1959, who acquitted the respondent.   The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent Mirza Amir Beg, son of MirzaHussain Beg, was the Manager of the refreshment room at Railway Station, Rawalpindi. On the 23rd September 1958, the Food Inspector tool' a sample of milk out of a vessel containing two seers of milk lying In the refreshment room, and sent it to the Public Analyst for analysis, whose report shows that the sample of milk was mixed with added water to the extent of 30 per cent. After receiving the abovementioned report, the respondent was challaned, who denied his guilt and produced, in his defence, Ashiq Hussain Mirza (D. W. 1) and Muhammad Nawaz (D. W. 20). Ashiq Hussain Mirza deposed that the milk was not sold but was used in the preparation of tea. Muhammad Nawaz D. W. deposed that once he wanted to purchase some milk for his children from the refreshment room but the contractor refused to supply him milk saying that he did not sell milk. The trial Magistrate. Mian Abdus Sattar, Additional District Magistrate. exercising summary powers, by his order dated 27th December 1958, convicted the respondent under section 13 (1) (a) read with section 13(6)(i) of the Punjab Pure Food Act (VIII of 1929) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or In default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, Mr. Jamil Asghar, learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, relying upon an unpublished judgment of Falsbaw, J. of the East Punjab High Court in P. 0, Hagan v. The State (Cr. App. No. 110 of 1959) came to the conclusion that the milk when poured in the cups full of tea gets diluted with a large percentage of water and, therefore, selling of cups of tea with milk already adulterated with water did not amount to selling of adulterated milk. He further held that the prosecution did not establish that the respondent was selling…