STATE OF U P Vs. CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This government appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal of respondent who has been acquitted from the charge vide order dated 15.01.1986 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Shri R.C. Gupta, Food Inspector found the accused Chandrapal selling milk on 17.01.1982 at 10.30 a.m. at Raya Nahar, Mathura. It was a mixed milk of cow and buffaloes. Food Inspector took the sample for the purpose of analysis by purchasing 660 ml. milk for Rs.1.50 and prepared notice Ext.Ka-1, receipt Ext.Ka-2, inspection memorandum Ext.Ka-3. He took the sample according to rules, sealed it on the spot and divided in three equal parts. The signatures of the accused appellant was obtained on the documents prepared at the spot and the label affixed on the sample bottles itself. The Food Inspector added necessary quantity of fermaline as preservative. Thereafter he sent one of the samples vide memorandum Ext. Ka-4 to the Public Analyst, Lucknow for examination and analysis. The Public Analyst vide its report found the milk to be adulterated in as much the sample of milk was found deficient by 42% fatty solids and 53% in non-fatty solids. After receipt of the Public Analyst report the Food Inspector reported it to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura for obtaining his sanction for prosecution of the accused appellant. Chief Medical Officer accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused. The sanction is Ex.Ka-6 and subsequently Food Inspector filed complaint Ex.Ka-8 in the court having jurisdiction.

(3.) Perusal of the record reveals that the accused appellant denied having sold the milk and stated that he was employee of Pratap Singh the other accused who was said to be the owner of the milk and now acquitted by the trial court. Further the accused pleaded that he did not receive the copy of the Public Analyst Report as mandatorily required under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, '1954 Act') so he was deprived of his valuable right conferred under Section 13(2) of the 1954 Act. Further the accused has stated that he did not sell the milk but was taking it to some other man, namely, Rajendra Singh in connection with Dasthaun ceremony of his son.