SATYANARAIN Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows : On 2-6-77 at 9.15 a.m. S.W. Gupta (P.W. 1) Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation Ujjain purchased 660ml. of milk from the respondent as sample for analysis after giving him notice in the requisite form and after payment of price. The respondent was carrying 21 litres of milk in two containers on bicycle for sale. The Food Inspector took sample from one container which contained three litres of milk. The sample was divided in three equal parts and after adding the requisite preservative one of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst found the milk below standard. On these facts the respondent was prosecuted for an offence under section 7(1), 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty. The learned magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that the solid fats in the sample exceeded the prescribed standard by 0.3% and solid nonfat were less by 0.3% and therefore it is doubtful that the milk was below standard.

(2.) I have come to the conclusion that this appeal preserves to be allowed. The trial magistrate has found that the Food Inspector was duly authorised and he purchased 660ml. of milk from the respondent as sample for analysis. On the basis of the testimony of Karansingh (P.W. 2) and Suganchand (P.W. 3) the trial magistrate held that the respondent was carrying cows milk. The public Analyst on analysis found that the sample contained 8 2% solid non fats and 3.8% solid fats. Thus the sample was deficient in solid non fats by 0.3%. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the learned magistrate for holding that it is doubtful that was below standard because the solid fats was found to be some what excessive.

(3.) In Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Hazara Singh, (1975(1) F.A.C. 271) the Supreme Court explained the decision referred to above and observed that:-