M.C.D. Vs. CHHAJJU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was convicted of an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced by a Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period. He preferred an appeal in the court of Sessions. The judgment of the trial court was set aside and the respondent was acquitted. Against that decision the Municipal Corporation of Delhi obtained leave and the case has come up before us for consideration.

(2.) The respondent is carrying on the business of a Halwai at shop No. 4670, Ansari Road, Delhi. He also sells curd made of cow's milk. On Feb. 8, 1970 at about 2 P.M. the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to his shop, purchased 600 grams of curd for purposes of analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts, filled in three clean and dry bottles and after adding the necessary preservative the bottles were fastened and sealed according to rules. One bottle was sent to public analyst for analysis and it was reported that the curd was adulterated due to 1.38% deficiency in milk fat as against the minimum of 3.5 percentage of milk fat prescribed under the rules for pure curd. In other words, the sample contained only 2.12 per cent of milk fat. Learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal accepted the established facts in so far as the taking of the sample is concerned. All the three prosecution witnesses admitted that the sample was properly taken. It was the compartment of the curd contained in a Kunda from which the sample was taken by vertical division of the compartment. This appears to be the correct way of taking a sample. But what the Food Inspector did thereafter was that he did not churn the entire sample. All he did was that he shook the sample with a spoon instead of churning it with a madhani or a churner before it was put into three parts and poured into bottles.

(3.) It is no doubt true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be of the view that the entire contents of the kunda should have been churned before the sample was purchased from it. This does not seem to be correct. Almost half the contents of the Kunda had already been sold but the quantity of curd in the kunda was several kilograms of dahi and it is not at all necessary that the entire contents of the Kunda should be churned before the sample is lifted and put into bottles.