ADMINISTRATOR NAGPUR CITY Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Nagpur Corporation through its Food Inspector against the acquittal of the Respondent 1 who was accused of an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (for short, "the Act ").

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case against the accused was that he was a milk vendor who on 9-7-1980 at about 9.30 a. m. came with one can of milk and two measures in Govind Dairy. The Food Inspector of the Nagpur Corporation Shri Bare was standing near the said dairy situated on Maharajbag Road, Nagpur. On being asked the accused told the Inspector that he was carrying the milk on "Chandi" to the dairy. The can with the accused contained 12 liters of cows milk. The Food Inspector called one pancha Manohar Pande and took the sample of the cow's milk in his presence as required by the provisions of the Act. The accused had told that he was the owner of the milk in the can. After complying with the necessary formalities prescribed under the Act the Food Inspector sent one sealed sample bottle and original form No.7 in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst of the Nagpur Corporation. He also sent a copy of form No.7 and forwarding form in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst. Similarly he sent two scaled sample bottles, two copies of form No.7 and paper of forwarding form in a sealed cover to Local Health Authority. He again sent two copies of form No.7 and forwarding form in a sealed packet to the Local Health Authority On 1-8-1980 he received the report from the Public Analyst in which the Public Analyst had given an information that the sample of cow's milk was found adulterated as it contained 14.4% of added water.

(3.) The Food Inspector thereafter obtained the consent for prosecution against the accused from the Joint Commissioner, Food Adulteration, Nagpur and filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate Nagpur on 1-10-1980. The learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the above facts framed the charge-sheet (Exh. 36) against the accused for an offence of storing and selling adulterated milk containing 14.4% of added water which was an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7( i) of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence. The prosecution led evidence by examining three witness including the Food Inspector Shri Bare to prove the charge against the accused. The accused, however, did not examine any witness in defence. The Public Analyst was not examined during the trial.