NAGAR SWASTHAYA ADHIKARI Vs. GARIB DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the order and judgment of acquittal dated 12-5-JS77 passed by Sri K. P. Mathur, Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

(2.) FOOD Inspector, Sri K. N. Misra (WP 1) found Garib Das accused, respondent No. 1, selling milk near Kolhan Tola Allahabad on 3-10-1974 at about 11.45 A. M. The FOOD Inspector disclosed his identity to respondent No. 1 and expressed his desire to purchase a sample of milk for analysis. He purchased 660 ml milk for Rs 1.50 p. and put it in three phials in equal quantity and added eighteen drops of formaline to each phial. The phials were duly labelled, sealed and a sample phial along with notice was handed over to respondent No. 1. Other formalities with regard to the taking of the sample were also observed. Zulfikar Havaldar and Lallan Chauhan were present at the time of the taking of the sample. In the records the FOOD Inspector mentioned the quantity taken as 600 ml. instead of 660 ml. A sample phial was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for analysis and report and (the Public Analyst submitted report dated 31-10-1974 that the sample contained 4.5 per cent fat and 5.9 per cent non-fatty solids. The sample was deficient both on fat and non-fatty solids contents according to the standard for buffalo milk. Thereafter the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari filed complaint against respondent No. 1 saying that he was liable for punishment under section 7/16 of the Prevention of FOOD Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) for selling adulterated milk.

(3.) IT appears that during the course of arguments inter alia it was argued before the learned Magistrate thai there was no compliance with the provisions of rule 22 of the rules framed under the Act, inasmuch as the quantity sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was :short by 20 ml. 220 ml. milk should have been sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, but only 200 ml. milk was sent. The learned Magistrate accepted this contention and held that in view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of rule 22, the accused could not be convicted. He, therefore, acquitted the accused.