STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHIVNATH RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the State against the judgment of the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay, acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Food Inspector, Manohar Sawant (P.W. 2), visited the milk shop of accused on April 18, 1972 at about 11.45 a.m. He purchased from him 700 millilitres of buffalos boiled milk for the purpose of analysis. He gave intimation to the respondent for that purpose and paid the purchase price. The respondent passed a receipt for the same. The milk was than divided by the Food Inspector into three equal parts and put into three separate dry and clean bottles which were packed, labelled and sealed as prescribed by the rules. One of the bottles was given to the respondent and the other was sent to the Public Analyst, Bombay, and the third he kept with himself for production in the Court. The report of the Public Analyst disclosed that the sample contains 11.2% fat and solid-not-fat (SNF) was 8%. The variation in fat may be from 6 to 8% in general. The Public Analyst also reported that the sample contains 11.1% extraneous water. He, therefore, gave the opinion that the sample was adulterated as defined under section 2(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Alteration Act. After obtaining the sanction the respondent was prosecuted before the Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay. A charge under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed and was explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined only two witnesses namely the panch witness Manohar Ramchandra Haldankar and the Food Inspector Manohar Ratan Sawant. The panch turned hostile and he was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the prosecution evidence was over. He stated that he had not committed any offence and he had sold the cows milk to the Food Inspector and that the case against him was false. The learned Magistrate after taking all the material into consideration and after referring to the decision in (B.A. Samant v. The State of Maharashtra) 70 Bom.L.R. 794 observed that the Food Inspector did not care to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether the Food Inspector purchased the milk in question from the accused and that he had divided it in the presence of the panch and he, therefore, held that the prosecution case is not free from doubt and the accused must be given benefit for the same. It is against this judgment the present appeal has been filed by the State.

(3.) When this matter came before Tulzapurkar, J., on 24th March, 1975, the Counsel for respondent invited his attention to a decision of Allahabad High Court case in (Sultan Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh) Cri. Rev. No. 579, dt. 10-4-73 Alld. He urged that on analysis of the sample the Public Analyst had reported that the fat contents of buffalos boiled milk was 11.2% and solid-not-fat contents were 8%. According to the standard fixed under Rule 5-A. 11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the fat contents of such milk in the State of Maharashtra should be 6% and solid-non-fat contents should be 9%. He submitted that the fat contents were more by 5.2% whereas the solid-non-fat contents were 1% less than the standard and, therefore, the Public Analysts opinion that the sample of buffalos boiled milk contained extraneous water to the tune of 11.1% could not be accepted. According to him, if the fat contents were more than the standard prescribed the fact that solid-non-fat contents were a little less than the standard was no indication that there was an addition of extraneous water to the milk and the sample could not be regarded as adulterated-Tulzapurkar, J.