STATE GOVERNMENT Vs. SONABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State, Government against an acquittal of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Central Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1919, for selling adulterated milk.

(2.) IT is admitted that the 1st respondent lives in the upper storey of a house in front of which the milk is said to have been sold. According to the prosecution, whose case is proved by Dhawle (P. W. 1) and Abdul Rahman (P. W. 2) and corroborated by Anant (P. W. 3), the respondent sells milk daily in front of her house on an 'ota'. P. W. instates that on the 10th November 1949 at 9. 30 in the morning he saw her selling milk there, so he went and asked her for a sample. She told him that water had been added to the milk. He said that nevertheless he required a sample. Accordingly three bottles were produced. The witness says that these bottles had been cleaned beforehand and were dry. Some 5 to 6 drops of formalin were added to each bottle and then the milk which was being sold was poured into these three bottles. The witness paid for the milk and obtained a receipt from the 1st respondent. The bottles were then sealed and labelled. One was left with the 1st respondent, one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was produced in Court.

(3.) THE Public Analyst certifies that the sample falls short of the standard of purity for buffalo milk prescribed by the State Government. The standard prescribed is that buffalo milk shall contain at least 5 per cent milk fat and at least 9 per cent solids excluding fat. The certificate of the Analyst says that the fat content of the sample was only 3 per cent and the solids excluding fat only 5. 74 per cent. Accordingly the sample clearly fell short of the standard of purity prescribed.