STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAGHUNATH HINDURAO GAJBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State Government against the order of the learned Chief judicial Magistrate , Kolhapur acquitting the respondent of all the offences with which he was charged , Viz those under section 7(i) and (v) read with section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The facts that are relevant for the purpose of the appeal are very few. The respondent was accosted by the Food Inspector while he was carrying certain quantity of milk for sale According to the Food Inspector, who is the complainant in this case, the respondent informed him, when lie was accosted. that he was carrying buffalo milk for sale The Food Inspector took sample of the milk. divided it into three parts and one of the parts was sent by him to the Public Analyst as required by law, on the same day, that is to say on 8th November, 1977. Section 11 (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter the Act) requires the Food Inspector to follow certain definite procedure in this behalf He has to divide the sample of the article in three parts. One of them has to be sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and the intimation of the fact that such sample is sent to the Public Analyst has to be given to the Local Health Authority. The remaining two parts of the sample are required to be sent to the Local Health Authority. Rule 17 framed under the Act prescribes the manner in which and the period within which the contents of the sample are to be despatched. The said rule 17(b) also provides that the remaining two samples are to be sent to the local Health Authority together with two copies of the memorandum in Form VII in a sealed packet. But evidently this provision under rule 17 (b) of sending two copies of the memorandum in a sealed packet is a provision independent of the provision relating to intimation contained in section 11 (c) (i) of the Act.

(3.) What the Food Inspector did in the present case was that although he sent one of the three samples to the Public Analyst no seperate intimation of the same was sent by him to the Local Health Authority. He remained content with complying with the requirement of section 17 ( b) only in part by sending the two sealed containers of the remaining two samples and the two copies of the memorandum in Form VII. He received the Public Analysts report which is produced at Exhibit 27 in these proceedings. The report purported to be in the prescribed form. The form requires him to state as to whether he had himself analysed the samples or had caused them to be analysed. But he kept the information on that point vague by not scoring off the inapplicable part of the question. The item of information expected of is alternative. He must inform as to whether he has himself analysed the sample or whether he has caused the same to be analysed by someone else. By not scoring off the inapplicable part of the information he has allowed the position to remain delightfully vague. In effect, the information given by him states that he has analysed the aforementioned sample and at the same time it also purports to state that he has caused the sample to be analysed, evidently by someone else. From the report, therefore, it cannot be found as to whether he himself has analysed it or the same was got analysed by his subordinate or by any other person. If he had got it analysed by somebody else he has not mentioned as to who that somebody else was. After making that statement the Public Analyst has made declaration of the result of the analysis. The result shows that the total sotids in the sample were 13% out of which milk fat was 5.3% and solids other than fat was 7.7%. He further expressed his opinion at the end of the report that the sample contains 14.4 % added water and that the same does not conform to the standards of buffalo milk as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.