STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KHODAJI JINAJI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Gujarat has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated July 31, 1978, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad City, acquitting the Respondent No. 1 of offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated as under Respondent No. 2, who is Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, purchased 700 ml. of cows milk for Rs. 1.05 P. from Respondent No. I on August 27, 1976 after giving due intimation in writing to him that milk was purchased for analysis by the Public Analyst. Milk was purchased in presence of peon Daud Gatur and panch Sukhalal Sohansinh. Milk purchased by the Food Inspector was taken in a tumbler and thereafter it was divided into three equal parts. Each part was poured in a clean dry bottle and preservative called formaline was added to it. Each bottle was duly sealed and wrapped in a thick brown paper. The ends of the paper were affixed by means of gum. Paper cover of each bottle was secured by means of twine and each packet containing bottle was duly sealed. One of the bottles containing sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst by his report Exh. 9, gave opinion that the sample of cows milk sent to him for analysis did not conform to the standard laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), framed under the Act. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the milk was adulterated. The Public Analyst detected addition of 28 per cent water in the milk. After obtaining necessary sanction, Respondent No. 2 filed complaint against Respondent No. 1 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Sixth Court, Ahmedabad, alleging that the Respondent No. 1 had committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Act.

(3.) During the trial on the application made by Respondent No. 1, one of the sample bottles was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The certificate issued by the Director is at Exh. 2. The prosecution examined Food Inspector and peon Daud Gafur. It appears that the Public Analyst was called for cross-examination by Respondent No. 1 Panch Sukhalal Sohanlal could not be examined as his whereabouts were not known. On consideration of evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated August 23, 1977, held Respondent No. 1 guilty of offence with which he was charged. He, therefore, convicted him for offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) with section 7(1) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default further simple imprisonment for four months.