NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika, Ghaziabad against an order dated 15-9-1969 of Sri S. C. Misra, Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut acquitting the respondent under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE prosecution story was that on 26-11-67 at about 4-45 p. m. the Food Inspector Sri J. C. Verma intercepted the respondent Gopal at Kaila Road, Ghaziabad, while the latter was carrying a can of milk over his head and another can in his hand for sale. On being questioned, the respondent replied that he was going to sell she-buffalo milk. Thereupon the Food Inspector aforesaid purchased a sample thereof in the presence of the witnesses, and divided the same in three separate phials. The Food Inspector also served a notice upon the appellant intimating that one phial of the sample would be sent to the Public Analyst. A receipt of its purchase was issued by the Food Inspector, which was signed by the witnesses. To each phial of the sample milk, 16 drops of formalin was added for the purposes of preservation, and each phial was sealed, labelled and signed by the Food Inspector. One of these phials was handed over to the respondent, one was retained by the Food Inspector and one was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis. A report dated 11-1-68 was received from the Public Analyst, in which it was disclosed that the sealed sample of milk sent to him for analysis was deficient in fat contents by about 57 per cent, and in non-fatty solid contents it was deficient by about 8 per cent. On the basis of the said report, the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Ghaziabad, submitted a complaint against the respondent in the court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 29-2-68, and the learned S. D. M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 (1) of Act No. XXXVII of 1954 on 26-3-68 and summoned the respondent for 22-468. The respondent eventually appeared in court on 15-5-68.

(3.) THE respondent denied that any sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on payment of its price. He, however, admitted his thumb mark on the notice (Ext. Ka-2) served upon him by the Food Inspector, and alleged that it was obtained under compulsion. According to him, he had a row with the Food Inspector and on that account he was falsely implicated.