STATE Vs. CHANDRAHASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these State Appeals involved a common question of law, they are disposed of together under this common judgment.

(2.) The State has filed these appeals challenging the acquittal of the accused in each of the cases, tried for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. C.A. No. 207 of 1984 challenges the acquittal of the respondent therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in C.A. No.53/82 of an offence u/Ss. 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) read with S., 2(1a) (a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the allegation being that the sample of mixed-milk taken from the respondent by the Food Inspector on 8-1-1982, was found to be deficient in solids not fat to the extent of 14%. C.A. No. 400 of 1984 challenges the acquittal of the respondent therein by the same Magistrate in S.T.C. No. 279 of 1982 of the same offence, tried on the allegation that the sample of mixed-milk taken by the Food Inspector on 22-7-1982, was found to be deficient in solids not fat to the extent of 18%. The common ground for acquittal is that, in both the cases, though there was deficiency in one of the constituents of milk, namely, solids not fat, there was an excess of the other constituent, namely, fat and as such the milk could not be taken to be adulterated. In both the cases the learned Magistrate has placed reliance on two decisions of the Patna High Court - Ram Prasad, v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1982 F.A.J. 257 andSultan Shah v. State 1973 Cri LJ 1413 to hold that the deficiency could have been caused due to improper feeding of the cow and no inference that water was added could be drawn.

(3.) Though notices from court had been taken to the respondents on several occasions, they have all been returned unserved. The present whereabouts of the respondents are not known. This judgment is given on perusing the records and on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor.