FOOD INSPECTOR ADILABAD Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-4-1999 in C.C.No.130 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Adilabad.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Adilabad filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Adilabad alleging that on 31-12-1997 at about 5.00 p.m., the Food inspector Division-1, Adilabad along with his attender went to the shop of the accused and found 20 liters of buffalo milk kept for sale. As the Food Inspector suspected the same to be adulterated, he purchased 750 ml of buffalo milk, after stirring the entire milk, by paying cash. Then the buffalo milk was taken into three dry clean and empty glass bottles and in each part 20 drops of formalene was added as a preservative. Bottles of samples were closed tightly with caps and sealed, and thereafter one sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst. The Analyst after analysis opined that the values obtained for fat and solid not fats were less than the prescribed limits, and therefore the sample was adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, he lodged the complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad.

(3.) When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against them for the offence under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") they denied the same. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.l to P.21 were marked. The lower Court, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Food Controller Zone-V, Warangal, was present at the shop of the accused at the time of producing the sample but he was not cited as witness, and that PW.1 was not a Gazetted Food Inspector empowered to lift the samples in Adilabad Municipal area and that the formalene drops were added after dividing the samples into three parts and that the sample of milk was not stirred in clockwise and anticlockwise and accordingly acquitted the accused. Against the said acquittal, the Food Inspector preferred the present appeal.