STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. ABRAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment of acquittaldated 22/10/1986, of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The respondentwas acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) . The undisputed facts of the case are that on 27/02/1985, at about 4.45p.m. the respondent was carrying certain milk cans in a vehicle from his village forselling the milk in Delhi, but on the way to Delhi the Food Inspector stopped hisvehicle near Nizammuddin Bridge and had taken a sample of the milk from a canwhich bore no lable. In the receipt issued by the Food Inspector to the respondentfor purchasing sample of the milk, the respondent had recorded that he had soldthe sample of separata /(skimmed) milk. The analysis of the sample milk carriedout by the Public Analyst indicated that the sample did not conform to the standardof buffalo milk although it did conform to the standard of skimmed milk.

(3.) . A complaint was made against the respondent before the MetropolitanMagistrate after obtaining necessary prior sanction on the ground that the can fromwhich the sample of the milk was taken did not indicate as to what kind of milk itcontained, so, in view of the Rules applicable to the sample where there being noindication of the type of the milk so sold, the standard of buffalo milk is applicable.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had held that in the receipt the respondenthad indicated that he was selling sample of the skimmed milk and thus, thestandard for the skimmed milk was applicable and hence, the respondent was notguilty of selling any milk of buffalo which could be treated as adulterated milk asit did not conform to the standard of Buffalo milk prescribed by the statute. So, heacquitted the respondent.