V B SHUKLA FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. PRAKASH VISHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Food Inspector Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the order of acquittal passed by the City Magistrate 8 Court Ahmedabad in case No 177 of 1970 of his file.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 Prakash Vishandas was prosecuted for the offence under sec. 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (which is hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adulterating milk with water. On 24th April 1970 the appellant complainant purchased some sample milk from the shop of the first respondent intimating him that the said sample milk was purchased for analysis by Public Analyst. The sample was taken and sealed in the presence of Panchas under regular Panchanama and thereafter on analysis it was found that it contained 5.2% solids non-fat and 4% of fat. It is an admitted position that this was the sample of cows milk. Now according to rule 5 framed under the Act the cow milk should contain not less than 3.5% of milk fat and not less then 8.5% of milk solids other than milk fat. Since the percentage of milk solids other than milk fat was not conforming to this requirement in the sample taken by the Food Inspector the respondent No.1 was prosecuted. In the course of the trial the respondent requested the court to send the sample for analysis by Director Central Food Laboratory. The report of that officer has been received by the Court which is found at Exh.2 and which is dated 24-7-70. According to that report the milk solids other than milk fat were found to be 4% while milk fat was found to be 2.5%. The analysis made by the Public analyst was on 77th April 1970 The analysis made by the Director Central Food Laboratory being on 24-7-70 the same is found to have been made three months after the analysis made by the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst who has conducted the analysis is one Laxmansingh Himatsingh Vaghela who is examined during the course of the trial and whose deposition is found at Exh. 12 of the record of the case. This deposition as well as the report prepared by him shows that with a view to prevent deterioration of the milk taken in the sample substance known as formalin was added.

(3.) On this evidence the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the contradiction between the report of the Public Analyst and the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory both the reports should be discarded as untrustworthy. It is solely on this ground that the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No. 1.