K T RAJKOTWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant who deals in milk has been convicted under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because the sample of buffalos boiled milk which was obtained by the Food Inspector on 22nd April, 1968 from the shop of the appellant was found to be adulterated. THE Food Inspector had purchased 700 millilitres of buffalos boiled milk and had sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst. THE Report Ex. C made by the Public Analyst under his signature shows that the sample contained 17.8% of extraneous water. THE prosecution also examined the Public Analyst who made the report. THE Public Analyst has deposed that though the report is dated 16th May, 1968, the sample was analysed on the same day on which it is received. THE sample was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day on which it was obtained by Food Inspector. It appears that it was contended before the learned Presidency Magistrate that the sample was not properly preserved because while Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, requires the addition of 56 drops of formalin, only 48 drops of formalin were added. THE learned Magistrate took the view that the preservative added could not be said to be highly inadequate and since the sample was not all found to be decomposed or spoiled, he declined to accept the contention of appellant that the analysis of the sample could not be relied upon and that the report of the Public Analyst should be ignored. THE appellant was thus convicted under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer further R.I. for four months. THE appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction. It is not necessary to go into the several contentions raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant because in my view, this appeal should be allowed in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008 to 1011 of 1967 decided on 25th April, 1969) THE Division Bench has taken the view that the report of the Public Analyst not made at the same time, when the sample is analysed but made later on the basis of the notes of analysis made at the time of analysis, will cease to have evidentiary value which the Act imparts to the report of the Public Analyst. It was contended before the Division Bench that the date of the Public Analysts report is only the date, on which the Public Analyst signed it and it did not necessarily imply that the Public Analyst made his analysis on the date which the analysis report bears. In the case before the Division Bench the reports of the Public Analyst bore a date much later than the date on which the samples were sent to the Public Analyst. Rejecting this contention, the Division Bench observes :