STATE OF M.P. Vs. AYUB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are short. On 25-3-1976, the respondent was carrying two containers containing milk to Sarangpur. Sample of the milk measuring 660 mili litres was taken from the respondent by the Food Inspector on payment of price, after giving requisite notice to the respondent. The sample was divided in three bottles each containing 220 mili-litres of milk. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that the milk was adulterated and deficient and was of a low standard It was found that 43% water was added to the milk. On these f acts, a complaint was filed against the respondent under section 7 (1) read with 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act. The respondent denied having committed any offence. The learned Magistrate found that the milk, which was being carried by the respondent was for sale and that the sample taken from the respondent was below standard. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that according to the statement of PW-2 Bashirkhan, 750 mili litres of milk was purchased and it was divided in three equal parts. The learned Magistrate therefore held that more than the requisite quantity was taken as sample and, therefore, it cannot be said that the milk was deficient in quantity.

(2.) I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The learned Magistrate was not right in holding that 750 mili-liters of milk was purchased from the respondent by the Food Inspector. The Inspector stated that only 60 mili-liters of milk was purchased by him from the respondent after paving the price thereof. He is supported by the receipt, which was passed by him. PW-2 Bashir khan not telling the truth when he states that 750 mili-liters of milk was purchased from the respondent by the Food Inspector. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in acquitting the respondent of the offence on the ground that 750 mili-litres of milk was purchased.

(3.) The provisions of Sec. 13(2) as amended by Act No. 34 of 1976 came into effect with effect from 1-4-1976, i.e. after the commission of the offence and, therefore, they are not attracted to the present case.