STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HAMID KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts giving rise to this appeal, as per prosecution case, are that the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) Jayantilal, on 30-6-1976 purchased 660 mltrs, of buffalo milk from the respondent who is a milk vendor for purpose of analysis. He gave notice, prepared panchnama, paid the price, divided the sample into three equal parts, tiled the bottles, added formal in requisite quantity, sealed them, handed over one part of the sample to the respondent and sent one part to the public analyst who, as per his report (Ex. P.4) found the same to be below the prescribed standard as milk fat was found to be 5% and solida not fats 6. 1%. On these facts the respondent was prosecuted which on trial resulted in his acquittal. The defence of the respondent was of denial. According to him, the milk which he was carrying was not meant or intended for sale.

(2.) According to section 13(2) of the amended Act, as also according to section 11 of the said Act, the Food Inspector has not now to give a part of the sample to the vendor from whom it is purchased, but admittedly the Food Inspector followed the old procedure. Even according to section 13(2) of the amended Act after the receipt of the report of the public analyst, the person from whom the sample was taken has to be intimated after the filing of the Challan and that notice has to be sent in accordance with Rule 9 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, but this procedure which is mandatory was not followed with the result that the respondent was deprived of his right to get the other part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory is he so chooses.

(3.) In these circumstances as the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 11 as also section 13(2) and had also not properly followed the rules even with respect to the sending of the sample of the public analyst, for these latches, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent and I do not find any valid ground to differ from the view taken and the conclusion reached by him while acquitting the respondent,