MUNICIPAL BOARD. JAUNPUR Vs. RAGHUNANDAN RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Municipal Board Jaunpur against the appellate decision of the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, whereby he set aside the conviction of the respondent of an offence under Sec. 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Sec. 7 thereof and acquitted him.

(2.) Proceedings against the respondent were- started on the basis of a complaint instituted by Dr. A.K. Roy, Medical Officer of Health-cum-Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Jaunpur, wherein it was stated that on 17-4-58, a sample of as a fetid was purchased by him from the shop of the respondent. The same was divided into parts, one part being handed ever to the respondent, another was kept by the Medical Officer, while the third was sent to the Public Analyst to the U.P. Government for analysis. On 8-7-1958, the said analyst reported that the sample of afore stated was adulterated in as much as its total ash comment was 36.10 per tent as against the maximum of 15 per cent permissible under the rules. It was on this basis that the respondent was summoned to court and the trial started. The respondent applied to the trial Magistrate under Sec. 13(2) of the Act that this part of the sample be sent to the Director Central hood Laboratory for a certificate. This was done. The report of the said Director dated 17-9-1958 shows that although the total ash content was only 4.5 per cent i.e. far less than the prescribed maximum of 15 per cent, nevertheless the sample was adulterated for a different reason, i.e. the alcoholic content was only 5.7 per cent as against the minimum of 25 per cent required. The trial court convicted the respondent on the basis of the above certificate granted by the Director, holding that his report was final and it had the effect of superseding the report of the Public Analyst. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent, felt that in as much as the director had been invited to give has opinion only as to the quantum of the ash content, the respondent could rot have been convicted on the basis of a totally different finding that the alcoholic extract did not satisfy the statutory minimum.

(3.) in this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was not correct, and the Director was not debarred from expressing his opinion on all points, which could demonstrate that the sample sent to him was adulterated, i.e. in addition to the point or points specifically referred to him. We are inclined to agree on this submission.