NAGAR SWASTHA ADHIKARI NAGAR MAHAPALIKA AGRA Vs. CHUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal Appeal filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari (N.S.A.), Nagar Mahapalika, Agra against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1977 passed by Sri A.U. Khan, AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in criminal case No. 2507 of 1977, acquitting the accused-appellant Chunni Lal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to be as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that on 16.6.1974, at about 8 P.M. Sri Virendra Prakash Sharma, the Chief Sanitary Inspector-cum-Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra visited the shop of the accused situated at Meerza Hussaini Crossing Nai Ki Mandi, within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra and purchased 660 mililiter cow milk on payment of demanded price. He divided the purchased sample in three equal parts and sealed each of the three phials of the sample. One of the phials was given to the accused, the second was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari (N.S.A.). The Public Analyst by his report dated 23rd July, 1974 found the sample of milk deficient in fact content by about 14% and in nonfatty solid content by about 16%. Thus the sample was adjudged as adulterated on the basis of the statutory standards for cow milk. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute, a complaint against the accused was filed in the court of Magistrate I Class, Agra. The accused Chunni Lal did not plead guilty to the charge and alleged that no sample was purchased from him. According to him, he had falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity with the Food Inspector Sri C.B. Gupta.

(2.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri V.P. Sharma, Chief Sanitary-Cum-Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Sri. C.B. Gupta, Food Inspector and Raghubir Singh, Food Clerk, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. The accused also examined one Chiragh-Uddin Quraishi, Advocate, collectorate, Agra.

(3.) On an assessment of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate held that the charge against the appellant was not proved. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 7/16 of the Act.