NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, RAIPUR Vs. TEJRAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that PW-1 Food Inspector Shri K.P. Baghel had purchased the sample of buffalo milk from the respondent-accused on 19-11-1975 when the latter was found carrying sufficient quantity of milk, be it 7 or 8 litres or 10 to 15 litres, vide receipt Ex. P-1, signet by the respondent-accused and the two other persons present at the relevant occasion. The Food Inspector, after completing the formalities in the matter of purchasing the sample and bottling the same, had sent one bottle of the sample to the Public Analyst, vide his report Ex. P-S dated 29-12-1975, had opined that the sample was below the prescribed standard. The report of the Public Analyst stated that the fat control was 4.7% and solid not fat was 9.1%. As per rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the standard for fat content regarding buffalo milk should be minimum 5% and the minimum solid not fat should be 9%.

(2.) According to the complaint of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur the milk in question, purchased from the respondent-accused being not according to the prescribed standard, was adulterated, and as such, the respondent-accused was guilty of the offence punishable under section 7(1) real with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Th respondent-accused was hence put up for trial. The only defence of the respondent-accused was that the milk in question whose sample was take by the Food Inspector, was not intended to be sold, but he was carrying the same, for delivery to his uncle for preparation of Kheer for a certain feast. The trial Court acquitted the respondent accused on the sole ground that the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector was to the effect that the respondent-accused at the relevant time was taking milk for sale, could not be believed Hence now the present appeal. The respondent-accused, in the present appeal, has remained absent despite issue of S.P.C.

(3.) As to the question whether the purchase of the sample of milk for analysis by any food inspector could be treated as 'sale' the law is well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mangaldas Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1976 (I) FAC 43. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act gives the special definition of 'sale' in section 9(xiii) which specifically includes within its ambit the sale for analysis. (See ; 1972 FAC 9, Food Inspector Vs. Charukuti Gopalans, 1976 (1) FAC 125 Ranjanlal Vs. State, 1980 (1) FAC 7, State of Tamilnadu Vs. A. Krishnamurthy).