BABU KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was prosecuted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) According to prosecution, on 10-12-1975, at about 7.30 A.M. the applicant was found exposing buffalo milk for sale in Mahavir Chowk, Muzaffarnagar. The Food Inspector took sample of milk from him and sent the same to the Public Analyst who found the milk having 4.6% fats and 6.8% non-fatty solids. From the aforesaid analysis it was found that the milk was deficient in about 23% fats and 24% non-fatty solids. The District Medical Officer of Health sanctioned the prosecution and thereafter a complaint was filed under Sec. 7/16 of the Act by the Food Inspector. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, Shri R.K. Goyal. The applicant in his defence examined two witnesses. The trial court found the applicant guilty and convicted him for having committed an offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000.00fine. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed.

(3.) In the present revision the first ground appears to be that the charge had not properly been framed. The Sessions Judge has quoted the charge in extenso in his judgment. A bare perusal of the charge shows that it does not give the complete details and the observation of the Sessions Judge that the magistrate should have framed the charge properly is correct. However, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the accused. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid view of the Sessions Judge is correct. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst under the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Act has to be sent to the accused and the accused must have come to know about the deficiency in the sample of milk taken from him. It has also been stated that the provisions of Sec. 10 (7) of the Act were not complied with. I have gone through the evidence of the Food Inspector in which he has clearly Stated that an attempt was made to have an independent witness but they refused to come. The provisions of Sec. 10(7) of the Act are only directory and not mandatory. When the Food Inspector made an attempt to have an independent witness there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Sec. 10(7) of the Act.