BABUBHAI HARGOVINDDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the City Magistrate 6 Court Ahmedabad of an offence under sec. 16(1)(a)(i) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (herein after referred to as the Adulteration Act) for having sold adulterated cows milk and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal against that conviction to this Court several points of law have been raised which were not raised in the lower Court. Similar points of law have been raised in similar appeals by other accused persons pending before this Court in respect of cases of adulteration under the Adulteration Act. Therefore some of the advocates appearing in those cases who desired to intervene have also been heard on these points.

(2.) The facts of this case which were broadly representative of the facts in other cases also so far as the points of law reised are concerned may be stated in brief. On 2-12-1965 at about 8 A.M. at Ahmedabad the Food Inspector Mangulal C. Mehta who is the complainant in this case went to the shop of the appellant Babulal Hargovandas who carries on business of selling milk and after intimating to him that he was the Food Inspector and was purchasing the milk for analysis purchased from him 700 ml. milk which was being sold as cows milk. This was divided into three parts in three bottles and 16 drops of formalin were added to the contents of each of the bottles. The bottles were then corked sealed and wrapped and they were sealed again over the wrapper and signatures of the panch one Adambhai Rasulbhai were taken. Then one bottle was given to the appellant one was kept by the Food Inspector to be produced in Court as required by the provisions of the Act and one was handed over that very day at about 11-30 A.M. to the Chemist Laxmansing Vaghela who has been examined as a witness in this case and who according to the evidence had been duly authorised by the Public Analyst Dr. Vyas. The necessary specimen signatures and impression of the seal were also handed over to Vaghela along with the bottle. Vaghela having compared the signatures and the seals and satisfied himself that the sample was fit for analysis analysed the sample and found it to be adulterated. The adulteration was that the total solids non-fat were less than the minimum prescribed. The minimum prescribed was 8.5% and what was found was 7.4%. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector filed the complaint on 6-4-1966 with the written consent of the Medical Officer of Health.

(3.) The prosecution examined the Food Inspector Mehta the Chemist Vaghela and the panch Adambhai Rasulbhai The prosecution also produced several documents namely the intimation (Exh. 4) given by the Food Inspector to the appellant the appellants receipt for having received the bottle containing sample and the price thereof (Exh. 5) the authority given by the Public Analyst to Vaghela to receive samples and compare the seals etc. the report of the Public Analyst Dr. Vyas the sanction in writing for the prosecution given by Dr. Dixit Medical Officer of Health and the Resolution of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereafter referred to as the Corporation) authorising the said Health Officer to give consent to prosecution. The appellant denied his signatures on the intimation and the receipt but had nothing to say about the prosecution evidence. The panch witness did not support the prosecution beyond admitting his signatures on the receipt Exh. 5 and on the labels and wrappers of the bottles. The only evidence therefore was of the Food Inspector Mehta and Chemist Vaghela and of the documents The learned City Magistrate found this evidence to be sufficient and convicted and sentenced the appellant as earlier stated.