RAMCHANDRA BALENDRA MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22-3-1973, Hasmukhlal Bhagwandas who is a Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation purchased 900 m.ls. of cow milk from the accused-appellant for 70 raise. This accused was informed that the milk was to be purchased for the purpose of being sent to the Public Analyst. The milk was divided in three equal parts each of which was put in a separate bottle to which 19 drops of formalin were added. The bottles were duly scaled in the presence of the panch. One bottle was given to the accused. A receipt for the amount of 70 paise was passed by the accused. According to the report of the Public Analyst the milk was adulterated A complaint was, therefore, filed against the accused. At the instance of the accused, one of the bottles was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory or , Calcutta. Even according to the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the milk did not conform to the standard laid down under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused was tried for he offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned City Magistrate has convicted the accused of the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused has come in appeal.

(2.) Panch witness Naiinkumar Kantilal has turned hostile and he does not support the prosecution case. According to the appellant, no milk was purchased from him and no signatures were obtained from him on any of the papers. According to P.W. Hasmukhlal, who is a Food Inspector, the milk was purchased from the accused in the presence of the panch witness and peon Noor Mohamad Taj Mohamad. As observed above, the panch witness does not corroborate his evidence on the point. According to P.W. Hasmukhlal, it was he who divided the milk equally and put it in three bottles and added 19 drops of formalin in each of those bottles. According to the peon Noor Mohamad it was he and not Hasmukhlal who divided the milk in three equal parts in three different bottles and added 19 drops of formalin in each bottle. The bottles were corked and sealed by him. The evidence of the Food Inspector is, however, to the contrary. There is glaring discrepancy in the evidence of the Food Inspector and the peon on the question as to who divided the milk in three equal parts in these different bottles and added 19 drops of formalin. The prosecution has not made any attempt to get the above discrepancy clarified by re-examining Noor Mohamad, it should be remembered that the accused is convicted on the basis of the samples of milk sent to the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that the samples of the milk were properly taken in different bottles and that the formalin was also added in each of the bottles containing milk. In the present case, however, the evidence of Noor Mohamad is contrary to that of the Food Inspector on the question as to who did the above acts. The above discrepancy goes to the root of the case and it cannot be ignored especially when the panch witness does not support the prosecution story. Considering all these circumstances, it would be proper to give benefit of doubt to the accused. His conviction for the offence in question on the basis of the evidence of the type, discussed above, cannot be sustained.

(3.) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the accused is acquit-ed of the offence in question.