STATE OF M P Vs. PATIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadarwara, the State of M. P. has filed this appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 26-9-91, respondent/accused Patiram was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Leave to appeal was granted on 30-4-1992.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 8-6-90 the respondent/accused was carrying three containers of milk on a bicycle. K. P. Rai (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector exercising the jurisdiction over Gadarwara, accosted the respondent and disclosed his identity. On being questioned, the respondent disclosed him name to be Thola son of Bhola Yadav, resident of Khursipar, P. S. , Gadarwara. On being further questioned, the respondent informed the Food Inspector that he was carrying buffalo milk for sale. The Food Inspector expressed his desire to purchase milk for the purpose of analysis. He served a notice in writing of his intention to have the milk analysed. He having purchased 750 ml. of milk from the respondent, divided it into three equal parts in three different clean and dry bottles. Before taking sample, the milk of the container was properly stirred to make it homogeneous. Each bottle was marked, sealed and fastened. The signature of respondent was taken on each bottle. The Food Inspector sent one of the three part for analysis to Public Analyst under intimation to Local Health Authority and sent the remaining two parts to the said authority. The Public Analyst, after analysis of the sample of milk reported that the milk did not conform to the standard prescribed under the law for the buffalo milk and was, therefore, adulterated, After complying with the other formalities, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act.

(3.) AFTER concluding the trial, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to prove that respondent is the same person from whom the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. He also found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample which was alleged to have been taken from the containers possessed by the respondent was adulterated. As such, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charge levelled against him. It is against this judgment and order of the Trial Court that the State has come up in this appeal.