' According to the prosecution, the brief facts of the case are that Mauji Khan alias Mauji petitioner at the relevant time used to transport milk to Lahore for sale after purchasing and collecting the same from different persons of the locality in Police Station, Pattoki. On 20-10-1976, at Wan Radha Ram, the Food Inspector District Council Kasur, out of quantity of about two maunds of buffalo milk kept for sale in big cans, took a sample from the possession of the petitioner under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and sent the same for analysis to the Government Public Analyst, Lahore, who vide his certificate No. 8894, dated 15-11- 1976, found the said. Sample to be adulterated with excessive water to the extent of about 33 per cent. On receipt of the said report/certificate from Government Public Analyst, the Food Inspector submitted his complaint against the petitioner under section 6 (1) read with section 23 (1) (b) of the Ordinance in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate Section 30, Chunian. This complaint was accompanied by Declaration Form No. 9 and the certificate of the Public Analyst No. 8894, dated 15-11-1976. The trial Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 14-12-1976, when bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs. 1,000 were issued against the petitioner for 10-1-1977.
On that date, i. e. 10-1-1977, the petitioner appeared before the trial Magistrate. As required by amended section 242, Cr. P. C., the following charge under section 23 of the Ordinance was framed against the petitioner on that "Magistrate Sebtion 30, Chunian."
The file shows that the charge was read out and explained to the petitioner by the trial Magistrate, The statement of the petitioner was also recorded by the trial. Court on the same day which is reproduced below in extensor Since the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge, the trial*ourt accepting that plea, convicted him under section 23 (1) (b), of the.0r4inande andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 530, Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 30 was ordered to be given to the District Council, Kasur, as analysis fee. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. , Against his conviction and sentences, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kasur, who vide the impugned judgment dated 17-6-1977, held that the appeal was not maintainable as the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge before the trial Court, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months' rigorous imprisonment.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with this modification in the sentence. The petitioner his now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. It contended by the learned defence counsel that the trial o f petitioner stands vitiated for non- compliance of mandatory provision of section 20 of the Ordinance for not marking and sealing each part . Of the sample and for non-filling of Column No. 9 of Declaration Form No. 9 prescribed under section 18 (4) of the Ordinance read with rule 45 (1-A) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 19.65 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In other words, according to him, the filling of Column No. 9 of the said declaration form was the mandatory requirement of law and its non-observannt vitiated the entire proceedings. The argument advanced in this regard is that hundreds of samples are received by the Public Analyst from different parts of the Province and unless each sample is specifically marked and sealed, the possibility of mixing up or exchanging one sample with another I the laboratory cannot be ruled out. It is a pure question of fact whether the certificate or the opinion of the Government Public Analyst relates to the same sample No. 36 taken from the petitioner on 20-10-1976 at Wan Radha or not. If there was any doubt and any such objection had been raised Ramat the relevant stage, the prosecution by producing necessary evidence could 'prove that the report of the Public Analyst in fact related to the same sample taken from the petitioner by the Food Inspector on 20-10-1976. It is, however, an admitted position that at no stage before the trial Court the petitioner doubted the correctness and genuineness of the report of the Public Analyst or that the sample taken from the petitioner was mixed up or exchanged with some other sample and the report of the Public Analyst may be regarding that other exchanged sample.
The petitioner has offered no explanation for not doing so. In order to see the effect of alleged non- compliance of section 20 of the Ordinance and non-filling of Column No. 9 of the same Declaration For o No. 9, let us examine the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules.
3. Section 20 of the Ordinance and rule 44 of the Rules deal with methods of taking samples.
According to these provisions, an Inspector after purchasing/procuring or seizing any article of food in required quantity with intention of submitting the same for analysis, shall forthwith divide the sae, ento three parts to be then and there separated and each part shallmarked sealed or fastened in such manner as the nature of the article will permit and the person from whom the sample is taken, may, if he so desires, also ifx his seal or mark on each of the three parts. The Inspector shall submit one such part to the Government Public Analyst, deliver one part to the son from whom the sample has been taken or seized and retain the third p with himself for future comparison, if need be. Rule 45 of the Rules deals with packing of samples of' food for analysis.
According to this rule, samples the case of pre-packed articles of food are to be taken in original containers as far as possible, while in the case of non-pre-packed food like milk, samples are to be taken in clean dry bottles or small tins or jars which shall be dos sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or evaporation of moisture. All such bottles or tins or jars shall be labelled indicating the sample number, name and particulars of the person from whom the sample is taken, name of the article, date, time and place of taking the sample and thereafter the id bottles or tins shall be covered all round with a piece of cloth to he sewn at the ends and sealed on the stitches in the presence of the person from whom the sample has been taken. In 'accordance with the provisions of section 18 (4) of the Ordinance read with rule 45 (1-A) of the Rules, the Inspector is required to fill up declaration Form No. 9 in triplicate containing full particulars relating to the sample seized and such declaration shall be signed or thumb-marked both by the Inspector as well as by the person from whose possession or custody the sample has been seized and a copy thereof shall be given to such person. Under the same rule 45, the Inspector. While despatching/submitting a sample to the Government Public Analyst is required to send a forwarding letter in Form No. 5 giving full particulars of the sample and enclosing a clear impression of the seal used for packing the sample. Rule 46 shows the quantity of samples to be supplied to the Public Analyst. Section 7 of the Ordinance deals with the sale of pre-packed food, while rules 13, 14 and 15 relate to mode of labelling of such pre-packed food. Rule 16 deals with exemption from labelling of food under rules 13, 14 and 15 mid fiquid milk is one of such articles so exempted. Under rule 17, no person shall remove, add to, alter, deface or render illegible any statement upon 'a label printed on or attached to a wrapper of container in pursuance of rules 13, 14, 15 and 16. Rule 18 deals specifically with milk, according to which every receptacle containing milk shall distinctly state on a label in Urdu or English the animal from which the milk is derived. The label in case of a glass or earthen vessel containin&milk shall be printed, labelled or etched or engraved on the glass or earthenware or painted thereoa., The label in case of metallic vessel shall be a plate to be fixed on the receptacle.
The same procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to !Skimmed milk'. This rule further deals with dried milk and condensed milk.. These are in brief the various steps to be taken by the Food Inspector while taking sample and despatching/submitting the same to the Public Analyst..
4. When a sample reaches the Laboratory of the Government Public Anallyst, he is also required to take certain steps to avoid confusion of one sample with another. According to rule 47 of the Rules, on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from an Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him, shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received and shall note the condition of the seals thereon.
After opening the packet, laboratory number is assigned to the sample and that number is not repeated dining that calendar year. Under section 21 of the Ordinance read with rule 47 of the Rules, the Public Analyst after completion of the analysis of the sample, is required to send to the Inspector or person concerned a certificate in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Ordinance. This certificate apart from the result of such analysis, also contains other necessary particulars of the sample earlier sent to him by the Food Inspector so that he may check up that the certificate/opinion of the Public Analyst in fact relates to the same sample which he had sent.
As mentioned above, the Food Inspector is required to divide the sample into three parts then and there and each part is marked and sealed by him and one of them is given to the person from whom the sample is seized or taken. This precaution is taken that in case the said person doubts the genuineness or correctness of analysis of the Public Analyst of that part sent by the Food Inspector, he can get his own part of sample analysed through the Court. The statute further gives him the right to affix his own seal or mark on each of the three parts of the sample. This is to avoid tampering with his sample. One copy of Declaration Form No. 9 is also given to him and in token thereof his signature/thumb-mark arc obtained on the said form.
5. From a perusal of the elaborate provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules mentioned above, it is quite clear that the law has made ample safeguard to eliminate the chances of mixing up one sample with another in the laboratory of the Government Public Analyst and further the interest of the person from whom such sample is seized is adequately safeguarded from mixing up his own sample with any other sample in the laboratory and in case it so happens, the same can easily to detected and rectified.
6. In the instant case, what the Food Inspector actually did is that he took a sample of buffalo milk lying in large cans of the petitioner for sale and put it into three bottles giving his sample No.
36. It may be mentioned here that this number could not be assigned to any other sample taken by that Inspector during that calendar year. He put a seal on the cork of each bottle to avoid any tampering through Syringe etc. He then labelled each bottle with the following printed form containing sample number, name and nature of the article, name and particulars of the vendor, or the person from whom a sample has been taken, date, time and place of collection and name with official designation of the sender :- "Sample No. 36.
' Name of article submitted for analysis : Buffalo milk.
' Name and particulars of the vendor : Mauj Khan.
' Date : 20-10-1976.
' Time : 11 a. m.
' Place 4 collection : Wan Radha Ram.
' Name of the sender with official designation : Food Inspector. (SO Food Inspector."
' The Food Inspector then wrapped each bottle with a piece of cloth, stitched it and again put one seal on the stitches of the outer cover. He then filled,the following Declaration Form No. 9 in triplicate :- "FORM 9 (See RULE 45 (1-A)
FORM OF DECLARATION ' (ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 25) 1.. Name of the person giving sample 2 Name of the owner S,14 dicezi r
3. Place where sample is,taken . Ft) 16.11.) jli
4. Number assigned to the sample r
5. Apparent nature and description of the food
6. Quantity taken for sample
7. Amount of money paid for sample
8. Food purchased/imported from
9. Brief description of advertisement, if any, on container/package
10. Quantity in hand'
11. Description of specimen of the seal applied
12. If divided into three parts and if one received 13.Remarks Copy received Signature and address of the persongiving the sample and making declaration Date and time 20 - 10 - 76. Chief Officer Zila Council, Kasur Signature of the officer taking sample."
' A mere perusal of the said declaration form establishes beyond doubt the identity of the sample with the person from whom the same was taken. It may be observed that although the petitioner had a statutory right to affix his own seal or mark on each of the three parts of the sample taken from him, yet he did not avail this opportunity, which indicates that he was satisfied, with the sealing, marking and labelling done by the Food Inspector. The Inspector handed over one sealed bottle along with a copy of Declaration Form No. 9 to the petitioner and kept one bottle with himself. Column No. 9 of this declaration form was left blank by the Food Inspector. According to the defence counsel, it was obligatory on the part of the Inspector to fill up this column and its non- filling has vitiated the entire proceedings against the petitioner. In support of his argument he relies upon the following authorities :- ' Alif Gul v. The State PLD 1964 Pesh. 45 Zuffiquar All v. The State 1972 P Cr. L J 756 ' It seems that the learned counsel is relying upon the old declaration form prescribed in the First Schedule of the Ordinance wherein against column No. 9 the words mentioned were "label or mark". It is an admitted fact that in 1965, major amendments were introduced in the Ordinance through the West Pakistan Pure Food (Amendment) Act No. V of 1965 when the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 1965, were also framed. Section 18 of the Ordinance was substituted by a new section.
Under clause (4) of this section it was provided that the Inspector shall prepare in such form, as may be prescribed, a declaration......... The Governor of West Pakistan vide Gazette No. H. S.
0. (F & N)-1-9/96, dated 29-4-1966, added sub-rule (1-A) after sub-rule (1) of rule 45 of the Rules and further added new Form No. 9 after Form No.
8. It was, therefore, on 29-4-1966, that for the first time the present Declaration Form No. 9 was made part of the Rules. The cases relied upon by the defence counsel are under the old unamended declaration form while the present case is under the new amended form. A comparison of these two forms shows that except Column No. 9 all the remaining columns are the same. However, Column No. 9 of this Form No. 9 is entirely different from earlier Column No. 9 of Declaration Form. This Column No. 9 of Declaration Form No. 9 reads as under "9. Brief description of advertisement, if any, on container/package." The word 'advertisement' is defined under rule 2 (1) of the Rules as under :-- "2 (1).-`Advertisement' includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or other document, and any public announcement made orally or by means of producing or transmitting light or sound and 'advertise' shall be construed accordingly."
' The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'advertisement' is 'a public notice or announcement of a thing'. 'Advertisement' can be in writing through newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, placards, posters, hand-bills, writings or signs on walls etc. 'Advertisement' can also be oral or verbal by proclamation or through radio or television to achieve the same object. An article of food can be sold in pre-packed form or in non-pre-packed manner. For example, certain articles of food can be sold in sealed packets or tins etc., while others are sold without any such packing or sealing out of large quantity lying in bags, jars, buckets, pots or receptacles etc. Such pre-packed articles generally have certain writings or signs over them to show their trade mark or other speciality to distinguish that particular article from other articles of similar or same nature available in the market. However, there are certain packets etc. Which may not have any such advertisement or writing over them. Thus, there are two categories of pre-packed articles of food-one having writings showing trade mark etc. And the others without any such advertisement or trade mark etc. This inference finds support from the use of the words 'if any' in Column No. 9 of the said declaration form. In the case of pre-packed articles of food, if there are any trade marks or other special features shown on the packets, tins etc. Containing that article, by their manufacturers or producers, such trade marks etc. Will be called 'advertisement' of that particular article as mentioned in Column No. 9 of the said declaration form. No such advertisement is generally available where an article of food is sold in non-pre-packed manner. This can be further clarified by a concrete example. If a gowala or a shopkeeper is selling ordinary milk of, 'buffalo or cow etc. Out of big cans or pots, there will be no advertisement for such, milk. If on the other hand, the Lahore Milk Board is selling milk in small polythene bags, they will show their trade mark and other characteristics on the said bags and hi their case the advertisement of that milk will include the following :- 1/2 Litre. "L. M. P.
Butter Fat 5% Total solid. Homogenised Standarised.
' Similarly, biscuits are sold in sealed packets and tins etc, some of them bearing Trade Marks etc., while others are without any such trade mark etc. As indicated above, even in case of pre- eked food some at, ,ies may not have any advertisement, as they do not have any trade mark or other characteristics shown on the sealed packets etc. Thus, the word 'advertisement' can be used only in case of such pre-. Eked article of food which bears the trade mark.Or other features of that article. 'Advertisement' on the other hand, has no application in case of non-pre-packed food or such pre-paked food having no trade mark etc. The use of the words 'container/package' in Column No. 9 supports this conclusion. After giving my anxious thought to the language used against column No. 9 of the said form, I have reached the conclusion that Column No. 9 of Declaration Form No. 9 applies only in cases of such pre-packed articles of food which bear some trade mark or other speciality of the manufacturer or producer and this column has no application to non-pre-packed articles of food and such pre-packed articles which carry no trade mark or special features. In this view of the matter, the question of filling Coluns No. 9 of the said declaration form regarding the sample of buffalo 'milk taken from the petitioner out of a quantity of about two maunds lying in big vessels would not arise. This column, therefore, has been rightly left blank by the Food Inspector.
7. Further, no doubt, Declaration Form No. 9 is a mandatory provision under the statute, but we have to see its effect as a whole. If one of its columns is left blank or is not filled in, we have to see its effect in the circumstances of each case. In the present case, the name of the petitioner, number assigned to the sample, nature, description and quantity of the article taken into possession, description of the specimen of the seal applied to the sample, date, time, the name of the place where sample was taken, signatures and designation of the person taking the sample are shown in the said Declaration Form No.
9. The petitioner has also thumb-marked this declaration after having received a copy of it. These particulars lead to irresistible conclusion that they Mate to the sample of milk taken from the petitioner by the Food 'Inspector op 20-14)-1976 at Wan Radha Ram. TN, object of form No. 9 seems to fix the identity of a sample with the person from whom it is seized, when it goes to the. Public Analyst. If inadvertently or otherwise one of these columns of this form is not filled in, the Court has to see its overall effect whether the identity of the sample has been sufficiently established.Or is doubtful. If non-filling of one of such columns does not adversely affect the identity of the sample, then in such a situation the Court will not take serious notice of such an omission and the same can be ignored as the object of the form has otherwise been achieved. In the present case, even if Column No. 9 of the form was applicable but was left blank, the other particulars given in the form clearly establish the identity of the petitioner and his sample. In this view of the matter, even a mere omission to fill in Column No. 9 or any other column of the declaration form, would not vitiate the entire proceedings of the case, if otherwise the identity of the sample and person from whom it is seized, stands established on the basis of other particulars of the declaration form and other material available on the record. In other words, it is for the Court to satisfy itself whether the identity of the sample and the person from whom it is taken is established with the certificate/opinion of the Public Analyst or not.
8. As mentioned above, the Food Inspector forwarded a letter to the Public Analyst in Form No. 5 giving full particulars of the sample i. e. Sample number, name and address of person from whom sample was seized, date, time, and place of collection, specimen of seal used and sendofs name and address. This Form No. 5 is reproduced below "FORM 5 (See Rule 45 (2)) {{TABLE}} To The Public Anaylst........... District.................................
No........................................
Date......................................
Sir, #TBS I herewith submit the following sealed under section 18 of the West Pakistan Pure F for analysis and report Ordinance, 1960.
II II I #TBE Serial Article asked Price Date. Time. No.(for name) paid.1 23.45 Vendor's name and address.
6 Place of col- Nature of preset.- Remarks lection. Vative if any added to sample.
7 8 Sender- {{TABLE}}
9. According to rule 47, when a package containing a sample for analysis is received by the Government Public Analyst, he is first of all required to compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately on the forwarding letter and is also required to note and check the condition of the seals thereon. He also assigns his own laboratory number to it. Thus, if there is any tampering with the package, the same can easily be detected by the Public Analyst at this stage. On opening the package, he can also see the particulars of the sample as given on the label put around the bottle. If every thing is alright, he will analyse the article and will give his certificate/opinion as required by section 21 of the Ordinance. Here also the Legislature has taken further extra precaution that the certificate should be in the prescribed form attached with the Rules. This certificate also contains necessary particulars of the sample earlier received by him from the Food Inspector. It also shows the laboratory sample number, the Food Inspector's sample number and the name of the vendor or person from whom the sample was taken. Paragraph 2 of this certificate shows that the seal earlier put by the Food Inspector on the packet and removed by the Public Analyst is also returned to the Food Inspector and it is generally pasted on one corner of the certificate. The Food Inspector, therefore, on the receipt of the certificate along with the seal, can easily verify whether the seal was the same which he had earlier affixed on the sample. The certificate sent by the Public Analyst in the present case is reproduced below :- "WEST PAKISTAN PURE FOOD ORDINANCE, 1960 SCHEDULE (Section 21)
CERTIFICATE To The Chief Officer, District Council, Kasur.
I, M. A. Bari, Public Analyst for Lahore do hereby certify that I received on 22nd day of October, 1971, from the Chief Officer, District Council a packet said to contain a sample of B. Milk for analysis (alleged to have been despatched by him on the 21st day of October, 1976).
2. The packet was sealed with two seals bearing the impression on the invoice and the seals were opened in my presence and the contents of the packet were duly examined by me and remained under my immediate custody until the analysis was completed.
3. I have analysed the said sample and declare the results of my analysis to be as follows :- Milk Fat, per cent.
5.9 Milk solid not fat per cent.
6.0 I am of the opinion that the same is sample of B. Milk, which does not conform to the standard of B.
Milk prescribed by the rules made under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 in the following respects :-This sample is adulterated with excessive water to the extent of about 33 (Thirty-three).
' This certificate, apart from the opinion of the Government Public Analyst, also contains other necessary particulars of the sample and the person from whom it was seized. A mere perusal of this certificate leaves no doubt in one's mind that it relates to sample No. 36 of buffalo milk taken by the Food Inspector from Mauj Khan petitioner on 20-10-1976 at Wan Radha Rain. Thus, at every stage of the case when a sample is taken, sealed and submitted by the Food Inspector and received by the Public Analyst and then certificate sent by him and the same received back by the Food Inspector, the Legislature has taken enough precaution to see that there is no chance of any confusion regarding the identity of the sample. In the instant case, a perusal of the particulars given on the label of the sample, in the Declaration Form No. 9, in the forwarding letter sent by the Food Inspector and in the certificate of the Public Analyst, leaves no room for any doubt that the certificate No. 8894 received from the Public Analyst relates to Sample No. 36 taken from the petitioner by the Food Inspector on 20-10-1976 at Wan Radha Ram.
10. The words used in section 20 of the Ordinance are 'marked, sealed or fastened'. The word 'mark' is not defined in the Ordinance or the Rules. According to Wharton's Law Lexicon, the word 'mark' means a token, an A impression, a proof, an evidence. In commerce it means 'certain character struck or impressed on various kinds of commodities either to show the place where they were made and the person who made them or to witness that they have been viewed and examined by the officers charged with the inspection of manufacturers or to show that the duties imposed thereon have been paid'. It is also used to indicate the price of a commodity. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it means 'to make a mark on (things) by stamping, cutting, writing etc., to put identifying mark or name on things, to attach figures indicating prices of goods'. In the instant case, as indicated above, the Food Inspector had marked the label with the sample number, the name of the vendor or person from whom the sample was taken, name of article seized, date, time and place where the sample was taken etc. It was with these particulars that the bottle containing the sample was labelled by the Inspector. By labelling the bottle with these particulars under rule 45, it can legitimately be said that the sample was duly marked by the Food Inspector. Similarly, the sample was duly sealed, as one seal was put on the cork of the bottle and the other on the stitches of the outer cover. The word 'label' has been used in rules 13 and 45. This word has been defined under rule 2 (Ai) of the Rules as 'display of written, printed or graphic matter upon the immediate container of any article and upon the retail package of such article, unless it is easily legible through the outside container or wrapper'. This definition covers the labelling of pre-packed as well as non-prepacked articles of food. It is an admitted fact that the three parts of the sample taken from the petitioner were duly labelled by the Food Inspector with necessary particulars as mentioned above. I, therefore, find no violation of section 20 of the Ordinance.
The result is that neither there is any violation of section 20, nor of an rules in the instant case. On the other hand, I find that the mandatory pr B visions of the Ordinance and the Rules have been dui, complied with.
11. The learned defence counsel, as shown above, has cited two authorities in support of his argument. However, I find that the facts and circumstances of those cases are quite distinguishable. It was the declaration under the Schedule of the original Ordinance, 1960, where against Column No. 9 the words used were 'label or mark', but now that column has been completely changed. Those authorities are, therefore, not useful for the decision of the present case. Moreover, I disagree with those decisions on certain other aspects of the case, as indicated above.
12. Another contention raised by the defence counsel is that the Courts below were not legally justified to base the conviction of the petitioner solely on his own plea of guilty and that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner by producing some positive evidence. I find no substance in this argument. It seems that the learned counsel is not aware of the amendment of section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 (No. XII of 1972) old section 242 was substituted by the following.
"242. Charge to be framed.-When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, a fornal charge shall be framed relating to the offence of which he is accused and he shall be asked whether he admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged."
' In the instant case, the petitioner for the first time appeared before the trial Court on 10-1-1977 when charge was framed against him under section 23 of the Ordinance and the same was read out and explained to him. When asked whether he committed the offence charged with, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. On the same day, his statement was also recorded. In his statement the first question put to him was whether he had heard and understood the substance of the charge framed against him and his reply was in the positive. The next question put to him was whether he was pleading guilty to the charge or denying the same. Again he pleaded guilty to the charge and stated that he had committed a mistake by mixing water in the milk and begged for pardon. When asked as to whether he wanted to produce evidence in defence, he replied in the negative. It is not his case that the petitioner did not understand the meaning or the consequences of pleading guilty to the charge. He clearly understood the nature of the allegation and the resultant consequences of his admission of guilt. The petitioner at no stage of the case raised any objection or otherwise indicated that he pleaded guilty to the charge under any pressure, inducement, threat or misunderstanding regarding any question of fact. It was after the conviction that his counsel raised this technical Objection in appeal for the first time when the Public Prosecutor objected to the maintainability of the appeal. After taking into consideration the relevant material available on the record, coupled with the conduct of the petitioner, I am convinced that he voluntarily and of his own free will pleaded guilty to the charge. Accordingly, he is bound by his own] plea of guilty and its consequences. It is well settled now that if an accused person voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge, the trial Court can accept and act, upon the same and convict him without recording the prosecution evidence. The result is that no appeal was competent under section 412, Cr. P. C. Except as to the extent or legality of sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has already considered this aspect of the case and reduced the sentence of the petitioner. The view taken by the lower appellate Court regarding the maintainability of appeal is correct and, therefore, requires no interference by this Court.
13. The conduct of the petitioner is also relevant in this case. If there was any doubt 'about the mixing up of his sample with some other samples in the laboratory, he could easily raise this objection before the trial Court and then it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the same by producing positive evidence. As mentioned above, the petitioner on the very first day when he appeared before the trial Court, pleaded guilty to the charge and, therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecution to produce such evidence. Further, the petitioner was given one part of the sample along with a copy of the Declaration Form No.
9. If he had any doubt about the mixing up of his sample with some other samples in the laboratory, he had the right to ask the Court to send for analysis that part of the sample which was earlier given to him by the Food Inspector. Silence on the part of the petitioner is rather significicant and supports the inference that in fact there was no doubt that the certificate of the Public Analyst was correct and related to the same Sample No. 36 taken from the petitioner on 20.10-1976 by the Food Inspector at Wan Radha Ram. The reason why the petitioner voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge on the very first day when he appeared before the trial Court, may be due to the fact that he himself may have mixed the excessive water in the milk or it may have been done at his instance or within his knowledge, as he was to great extent beneficiary of this adulteration.
14. The last contention raised by the defence counsel is for the reductio of sentence. I am afraid, the petitioner deserves no 'leniency' on this score. Adulteration in essential articles of food like milk is a serious crime, as I affects the health of the nation and, therefore, anybody found guilty of such anti-social offence, deserves deterrent punishment. Moreover, the petitioner I a previous convict of the same offence and now he has committed the sam offence for the second time.
15. The result is that this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.