NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI Vs. BALRAJ YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, against the judgment and order dated 21.3.1978 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, convicting and sentencing opposite party, Balraj Yadav son of Ram Kishore resident of Malawan Khurd, Police Station Sarai Inayat, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but instead of sentencing him, released him under the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1958 on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties in the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of two years.

(2.) On 19.9.75 at about 11.30 a.m. Food Inspector Shri Ram Chander (P.W. 1) found the accused selling and carrying for sale milk in Colonelganj. After disclosing his identity purchased 660 M.L. of milk vide Ex ka 1, on payment of its price. This sample was divided into three equal parts and filled in three clean and empty phials. They were leveled, packed and sealed after adding form a line. One sealed public was given to the accused. One of such phial was sent to Public Analyst along with memo and sample seal. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficit in fat contains by about 13% and also in non-fatty solid contains by about 2O%. The sample was judged on the basis of the standards applied for buffalo milk. After getting sanction for prosecution and after informing the accused about the report, a complaint was lodged, leading to prosecution of Balraj Yadav for being committed an offence punishable under section 7(1)(16)(i)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) In support of the charge the prosecution examined Ram Chander (P.W. 1), Food Inspector, S.C. Srivastava (P.W. 2) the clerk in the Foods Department. The accused denied the taking of the sample and produced Mata Pher (D.W. 1) in his defence who stated that he carries on milk business. He has cow and buffalo and on 19.9.75 he had asked Balraj Yadav to take the milk to Vikrama Singh. This witness was not cross examined by learned counsel for the prosecution.