STATE OF UP Vs. MOHAMMAD ZAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an acquittal of the Respondent from a charge Under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Respondent manages a non -vegetarian restaurant at the Aligarh Railway station. A sample of milk, which was presumably available for sale at the restaurant, was taken from the Respondent's restaurant on 28 -9 -1965 by the Food Inspector S.P. Kakkar, (PW 1). Shambhu Dayal (PW 2), a Sanitary Inspector, acted as a witness. The taking of the sample of milk of eight chhataks, which was shown to have been sold by the Respondent on payment of 0 -40 paise, was duly proved. A receipt for it (Ext. Ka 2) was given. The milk was sealed in three phials one of which was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and another given to the Respondent. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the prosecution of the Respondent was ordered.

(2.) The trial court convicted the Respondent and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default, to undergo six month's R.I. The lower appellate Court had noticed several irregularities, including long delay in the institution of the prosecution, the taking of a smaller quantity of milk than was required by the rules to be taken for sample and the addition of 16 drops of formalin instead of 11 drops prescribed by the rules for preservation of the samples for proper analysis.

(3.) The report of the Public Analyst dated 26th November, 1965, shows that the sample was received by the Public Analyst on 29th September, 1965. The report contains a statement that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis. The adulteration which was present, according to the report, was that the sample of milk was deficient in non -fatty solids by 7 -0%. A complaint was filed against the Respondent on 5th of May, 1966 and the notice of the prosecution was sent to him on 30th May, 1966. Thus, we find that there was ah intermission of eight months before the Respondent could get the notice of the prosecution so as to be able to apply Under Sec. 13(2) of the Act for sending the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The Court found that the sample of milk in the phial given to the Respondent had become sour, or, in other words, it was unfit for analysis.