MAHAVIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Mahavir has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000.00, in default further R.I. for one year.

(2.) There is no dispute that the applicant happened to be the milk contractor for T.B. Hospital, Etawah, in Nov. 1976. Under the contract, Ex. Kha. 1, on record he was to supply pure and fresh buffalo milk at Rs. 1.59 per litre with specific gravity 10.30 and each litre yielding 250 grams of Khowa. It is not disputed that in case of fall in the specific gravity the authorities could make deductions from the bill. On the complaint of the Superintendent, T.B. Hospital, a sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector on 12-11-1976 at 8.30 A.M. On analysis the Public Analyst found per his report dated 22-11-1976 that the milk contained only 5.6% fat and 8.2% non-fatty solids as against the prescribed standard of 6% and 9%. The milk was, therefore, declared adulterated. Both the courts below have found the applicant guilty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant pressed the following points; It was urged that the prosecution was vitiated because the Food Inspector had violated Sec. 10(7) of the Act and not called independent witnesses at the time of sample taking. The record shows that the two witnesses who were called and have signed the receipt for the price of milk are Jamuna Prasad, Pharmacist of the T.B. Hospital, and Devi Din, Sanitary Supervisor. When the sample was being taken at the time of supply of the milk to the Hospital, the Pharmacist of the Hospital would be a natural witness and in my opinion should be taken to be an independent witness notwithstanding the fact that he is also an employee of the Health Department to which the Food Inspector belongs. In this connection the Food Inspector has deposed that the milk was being delivered to this very Pharmacist. The other witness Devidin was admitted by the Food Inspector to be his own. The Food Inspector specifically stated that there was no public witness available at the spot at that time. In the circumstances I am unable to agree that there has been any breach of Sec. 10(7) of the Act.