NAGAR SWASTHYA ADHIKARI Vs. BABU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Agra against the acquittal of Babu Khan respondent under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is that on 14th June, 1972 at about 8 P.M. in Hariom Gali Rauki Mandi within the police circle of Shahganj and limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra Shri M.P. Jain, Food Inspector, found the respondent selling milk in a balti which had no label. The Food Inspector Shri M.P. Jain purchased 660 millilitres of milk from respondent Babu Khan and paid him its price of 75 paise. The milk was divided into three parts and each one of these parts were sealed in separate containers. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis of its constituents. The other was retained by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari while the third bottle was handed over to the respondent. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of the milk was without label and was in a condition fit for analysis. He had found that the sample contained 3.4% fat and non-fatty solids 6.7%. He was of the opinion that the sample was deficient in fat contents by 43% and was also deficient in non-fatty solids. No change had taken place in the constituents which would have interfered with the analysis. The sample was judged on the basis of statutory conditions of buffalo's milk. It may be stated here that although the Public Analyst judged the sample of the milk according to the standard provided for buffalo milk but it was also deficient even if we treat it as cow's milk according to the percentage of fat and non-fatty solids prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(3.) The respondent asserted that he was selling cow's milk. He had purchased it for his child. He denied that any notice as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or its rules was not given to him. The sample was forcibly taken from him. No price was paid. His thumb impression was forcibly taken. He also denied that any formalin was added for preserving the milk in his presence. At the trial the prosecution case was supported by P.W. 1 Mahendra Prakash Jain, Food Inspector, P.W. 2 Suraj Bal Ram Malik and Chetan Das P.W. 4. Out of these witnesses Chetan Das P.W. 4 did not support the prosecution case. P.W 3 Mahesh Chandra is a formal witness, a clerk in the office of the Nagar Mahapalika, who proved that the respondent had a licence for sale of milk between 22nd Aug., 1972 and 31st March, 1973. Respondent had also examined one Bedi Lal in his defence. The learned Magistrate who tried the respondent came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that formalin w?rs added to the sample as required by Rule 20 or Rule 21. Since the observance of Rule 21 was mandatory he was of the opinion that the conviction could not be sustained. He accordingly acquitted the respondent.