IN RE: PANCHAMI Vs. A.B.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises in this case is, whether R. 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1977, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) is mandatory or directory.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 24th Jan., 1977, at about 7 A. M., P.W.I the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality saw the petitioner, a licensed milk vendor selling milk in Nageswaran Thirumanjanaveedhi in Kumbakonam. P.W. 1 served on him Ex. PI, Form VI, expressing his intention of taking sample of milk for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter P. W. 1 purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner for Rs. 1.32 p. and obtained from him Ex. P2, receipt. As required by law he packed the milk in three bottles and sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst for analysis. Ex. P4 is the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the sample of milk sent to him was deficient in solids not-fat to the extent of at least 42 per cent. P.W. 1 served a copy of the report of the Public Analyst on the petitioner herein and obtained from him an acknowledgement, Ex. P5. Thereafter the petitioner was charged under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) When the petitioner was questioned under S. 313. Crl. P.C. he denied having committed the offence.