DELHI Vs. CHHOTE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The question whether the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are mandatory, noncompliance with which would prove fatal to the prosecution, or whether they are directory, non-compliance with which would not prove fatal in the absence of prejudice to the accused, arises for determination in this appeal by special leave by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment of Magistrate I Class, Delhi, whereby he acquitted Chhote Lal respondent in a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The matter was referred to Full Bench in view of the conflict of opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on May 1, 1968 at about 7 A.M., Food Inspector V. B. Sharma went to the shop of the accused in Gali No. 12, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The words "cow's milk and curd are sold here" were written with chalk on the door of the shop. The Food Inspector purchased 660 millilitres of cow's milk from the accused for 80 Paise in the presence of Food Inspector Som Dutt and Gobind Ram witnesses as per receipt Exhibit P. A. which was thumb-marked by the accused. Requisite notice was also given to the accused at that time and he thumb-marked Exhibit P.B. in token of that. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts. Each part of the milk was put in a dry bottle. Eighteen drops of formalin were added to the milk in each bottle. The bottles were then sealed. One of the bottles was handed over to the accused, another bottle was subsequently sent to the Public Analyst while the third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst analysed on May 2, 1968 the milk in the bottle which had been sent to him and found that the fat content of the milk was 0 -I per cent while the non-fatty solids were 9 -02 per cent. The prescribed standard of cow's milk is contained in Appendix B to the Rules and according to it cow's milk in Delhi shall contain not less than 3 -5 per cent of milk fat and not less than 8 -5 per cent of milk solids other than milk fat. The Public Analyst declared the milk to be misbranded as the same was skimmed milk but had been declared to be cow's milk. Complaint was thereafter filed by the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor against the accused on July 16,1968.

(3.) At the trial the accused in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that the shop, from which the sample of milk had been purchased by the Food Inspector, did not belong to the accused but belonged to Mahtab Singh who is the brother of the wife of the accused. According to the accused, he had on that day gone to the shop to bring his wife. While he was sitting at the shop and was waiting for Mahtab Singh, the Food Inspector came and forcibly secured the thumb- impressions of the accused on a number of papers. The accused added that he had been involved in this case due to a misunderstanding as the real shopkeeper was not present.