STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMZAN ABDUL DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Aug. 7, 1975, at about 1.45 p.m., the Food Inspector in charge of Kolhapur Division happened to sight the respondent-accused who was then carrying a milk can on a bicycle. The accused was apprehended and the Food Inspector having suspected that the commodity was adulterated, purchased 660 millilitres of buffalo milk for test and analysis. The requisite price of 80 paise was paid for which receipt was passed. Other formalities were observed. The same was divided into three separate samples one of which was handed over to the accused and requisite quantity of formalin was added. A panchnama was drawn which is at Exhibit 18. In due course, the sample bottle was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Poona, with form No. 7 and the Public Analyst reported the same to be adulterated. The total solids found were 6.4 per cent, milk fat 2,7 per cent and solids not fat 3.7 per cent and, in the opinion of the Public Analyst, the commodity contained 58.9 per cent of added water and did not conform with the standard of buffalo milk. The said report is Exhibit 11. A copy of the said report was, in due course, supplied to the accused. The Food Inspector thereafter appraised his superior about the progress of this matter and obtained sanction from the Joint Commissioner which is at Exhibit 14. Armed with the said sanction, the complainant ultimately filed the complaint on the 27th of Nov., 1975 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur, being Criminal Case No. 7755 of 1975 alleging that the accused had committed an offence under section 7(i) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He had raised several contentions. The first contention was that the milk in question was not for sale. The second part of the contention was that the required formalises under the rules have not been followed by the Food Inspector and, therefore, the Public Analyst's report would not be binding on him. It wa3 lastly submitted that the commodity in question was not established to be adulterated.

(3.) The trial Court was impressed by one contention of the defence, viz. that there has been a breach of Rule 7(3) of the Rules framed under the said Act, inasmuch as the report was not sent to the complainant by the Public Analyst within 45 days which was the stipulated time. This provision of the rule before amendment contemplated forwarding of such a report within 60 days and that has now been reduced to 45 days after amendment and the present case is governed by the said amended provision. Now, it is an admitted position that the sample was taken on the 7th of Aug., 1975 and it was forwarded to the Public Analyst on the 14th of Aug., 1975 and the report was received by the complainant for the first time on the 18th of Oct., 1975. In so far as these dates are concerned, there is no dispute in the face of clear admissions given by the complainant as also from the exhibited documents. On the basis of this, the learned Magistrate was persuaded to uphold the defence contention that there has been a breach of the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 7(3) under the Act. In view of this, the learned Magistrate did not go into the other aspect of the matter and acquitted the accused by his order dated the i 9th of May, 1976 and the State has preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal.