B J MAKWANA Vs. KIRITKUMAR LAXMANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the original complainant against the judgement and order dated 29-10-1988 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Summary Case No.488 of 1987 acquitting the original accused, i.e. respondent No.1 herein, for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Mr.S.K.Brhambhatt for Mr.B.P.Tanna, learned advocate appears for the appellant, Mr.K.V.Shelat appears for respondent No.1 and Mr.B.D.Desai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.2.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant is the designated Food Inspector for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. Respondent No.1 is carrying on business of selling milk at his shop situated at Lamba Pada Ni Pole, Raipur, Ahmedabad. On 03-03-1987, at around 9:00 a.m., the complainant alongwith one Shri A.S.Talat, Peon, visited the milk shop of respondent No.1 and purchased 750 M.L. of cow milk after making the necessary payment of Rs.3/= in presence of a pancha - Vishnukumar Prahaladji and informed accused No.1 that the said purchase was made for the purpose of analysis. That the necessary formalities were observed like dividing the purchased milk into three equal samples and kept in three clean empty dry bottles and after adding 20 drops of Formalin in each of the three bottles, the bottles were sealed, packed, wrapped and labelled in presence of the pancha. In short, the necessary formalities prescribed under the Act and Rules were duly observed. Thereafter one sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for analysis. Upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst it was found that there is 1 per cent less solids-no-fat in the milk i.e. the milk contained 7.5 per cent solids-no-fat instead of 8.5 per cent solids-no-fat. Thus, the sample of cow milk was found to be adulterated. Therefore, complaint was filed against the present respondent No.1 after obtaining necessary permission of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.