FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the Food Inspector who filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence of selling cow's milk which was adulterated. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent solely on the ground that delay of 42 days in filing the complaint (from receipt of the report of Public Analyst), has vitiated the prosecution.

(2.) The sample was taken from the respondent on 26-10-1983 and a cash voucher was issued by him for the price of 675 ml. of milk. On the same day, one of the parts of the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst shows that milk fat and milk solids-not-fat are deficient, vis-a-vis the standard prescribed for cow's milk. The Public Analyst further opined that the sample contained not less than twenty seven per cent of added water as calculated from the milk solid-not-fat content. Notice was issued by the Local (Health) Authority on 2-1-1984 as per S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') informing the respondent of his right to apply, within 10 days of receipt of the notice, to have one of the remaining parts of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The complaint was filed on 2-1-1984.

(3.) Learned Magistrate found that the Food Inspector has completed the sampling process in accordance with the provisions of the Act. DW. 1 was examined by the respondent to support his case that he had supplied cow's milk to a hotel early morning and kept the balance in a can near the counter since he was busy in connection with the marriage of his son. The suggestion of the defence is that Food Inspector has taken sample from the milk kept in the said can. The trail court did not accept the defence case. Testimony of DW.l was not believed. No effort is made in this appeal by the learned counsel for the respondent to persuade me to place reliance on the defence evidence. Learned Magistrate has taken the view that Local (Health) Authority would have received the report of the Public Analyst at least by 19-11-1983. The aforesaid inference is reasonable from the materials. But the complaint was instituted only on 2-1-1984. The delay would be around forty two days and the learned Magistrate held that the delay has disabled the respondent from sending one of the remaining parts of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. According to the Magistrate, if prosecution had been instituted immediately after receipt of the report, the respondent "could have availed of the lawful right of forwarding the sample to the Central Food Laboratory".