NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, against the judgment dated 28-2-1975 of the Nagar Mahapalika Magistrate, acquitting the accused-respondents of charges framed ' against them for offences punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also under Sec. 16 read with rule I 50(i) of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra P.W. 1 V.N. Singh took for analysis on payment sample of cow's milk on 31-10-1972 at about 9.00 A.M. from accused Subhash Chandra at the I shop belonging to his brother Om Prakash. The portion sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it was deficient in non-fatty solids. The Public Analyst found the percentage of non-fatty solids to be 7.4 percent I instead of 8 5 percent fat content in the sample was above the percentage I specified under the rules. Instead of 3.5 percent the percentage of fat contents was 5 percent. The prosecution has further alleged that neither Subhash Chandra nor Om Prakash had a licence to sell milk and thereby contravened i rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty. According to the defence, Om Prakash alone used to deal in milk at his shop. His younger brother accused Subhash Chandra was a young boy and it was not his duty to sell milk. On I the date of the incident Subhash Chandra was sent to the shop to clean up the place. Some milk was lying there in a container which could not be sold on the previous day and the Food inspector took sample from the same, I though Subhash Chandra told him that it was not for sale and had been kept for preparing Khowa out of it. Subhash Chandra, moreover, wanted to call his brother accused Om Prakash the owner of the shop, but the Food Inspector did not allow him to do so. It is further alleged that the Food Inspector neither paid any price for the sample nor was it sold to him by Subhash Chandra. In their defence the accused examined three witnesses.