PATIRAM Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 8th June, 1990 the appellant herein who was a milk vendor by profession, was checked by K.P. Roy (PW.2), while carrying three containers of milk on his bicycle. ON being questioned he revealed his name as Thola son of Dhola Yadav, resident of Khursipal, P.S. Gadarwara and the milk that he was carrying was buffalo milk for sale. The Food Inspector expressed his desire to purchase the milk for the purpose of analysis and after following the requisite procedures collected the sample and sent it to the laboratory for analysis. The Public Analyst opined that the milk did not conform to the prescribed standards under law for buffalo milk and was, therefore, adulterated.

(2.) A complaint under Sec.7(1) read with Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,was accordingly filed.

(3.) WE have gone through the judgment of the Courts below and the evidence recorded in this matter very carefully. WE find that the Trial Court had given very elaborate and cogent reasons for arriving at its conclusion that the identity of the appellant had not been proved. WE are of the opinion that this finding of fact which was well based should not have been interfered with by the High Court and even if two views were possible the one in favour of the accused had indeed been taken. It is now well settled that the presumption of innocence which is available to an accused is strengthened by an acquittal by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should therefore be slsow while interfering in the matter. WE therefore reverse the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court and order the acquittal of the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. The Appeal is allowed.