NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI Vs. VISHAMBHER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, against the acquittal of respondent Vishambhar Nath u/Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent is a Halwai who also sells boiled milk in Numner, Police Station Sadar, within the Nagar Mahapalika limits, Agra. On 30-10-1971 at about 8 p. m. Sri Kunwar Singh, Food Inspector, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, who inspected the shop of Vishambhar Nath and found him selling cow's milk which was boiling in a Karahai (pan). He gave him notice under Rule 12. The notice is Ex. Ka-1. The Food Inspector Kunwar Singh purchased 660 mililiters of milk from the respondent after paying 90 paise for its price. He duly obtained a receipt. That receipt is Ex. Ka-2. That milk was divided into three separate samples and he dropped 18 drops of formalin of 40% strength in each phial of the samples. The phials were thereafter sealed. Each of the sample phials was sealed and signed by the Food Inspector and the respondent. One of the sample phials was given to the respondent. The other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of the Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. According to the Public Analyst the sample contained :- "Fat 9 2% Non-Fatty Solids 7.1%" He was, therefore, of the opinion that the sample milk was deficient in non- fatty solids contents by about 16%. No change had taken place in the constituents of milk which would have interfered with the analysis.

(2.) THE complaint was filed against the respondent after obtaining the sanction of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Agra, on 13-4-1972.

(3.) THE prosecution examined the Food Inspector (PW 1), Arjun Das, Safai Hawaldar (PW 2), Prakash Chandra Agrawal, (PW 3), a clerk in the office of the Swasthya Adhikari who had brought the Licence Register to show that the respondent was a licensed milk vendor. PW 4 Jagdish Prasad did not support the prosecution case. THE two prosecution witnesses who support the case are PW 1 Kunwar Singh, Food Inspector and PW 2 Arjun Das. THEir evidence, in my opinion, does not leave any room for doubt that on 30-10-71 Kunwar Singh Food Inspector purchased the sample milk from the respondent. THE payment of price is also established by their testimony. THE respondent does not deny the taking of the sample either. He claims that he had purchased the milk from a milk-vendor for his son THE learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the discrepancy that in the statement of Kunwar Singh the date of taking sample is mentioned as 30-9-1971. This date is given as 30-10-1971 in the statement of Arjun Das. In my opinion, it was a clerical error as the date of taking the sample was never disputed by the respondent.