STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, after obtaining leave, has filed this appeal under Sec. 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, in Criminal Case No. 4215 of 78 on 6-12-80, acquitting him of the offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal as per prosecution case are as under: On 13-5-78 the Food Inspector Hazarimal Jain (P.VV 1) obtained sample of cow's milk from the respondent for purpose of analysis after giving him the due notice and after paying him necessary charge thereof. Thereafter the 660 ml. of milk purchased by him was equally divided and filled in three separate bottles after adding 18 drops of formalin in each of them and after sealing them in accordance with the Rules. Out of three samples two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority and one was sent to the Public Analyst, who as per his report Ex. P found that the sample did not conform to the standard in respect of cow's milk as the fat contents were found to be 3 6 per cent and solid non at 5.15 per cent. The sample was taken in the presence of witnesses P.W. 2 Vishnukumar and P.W. 3 Bherulal about which there is no dispute. Further according to the prosecution as per statement of P.W. 4 Mangalsingh Parihar, a Lower Division Clerk, working in the Office of the Local Health Authority, Ratlam, a copy of the public analyst's report Ex P-3 was sent to the respondent as required by Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ex. P-4, through the Food Inspector P. P. Tripathi, who has not been examined nor according to the statement of this witness the same is entered in the register nor did he obtain any acknowledgement receipt about the same. On these facts the respondent was prosecuted, v/hose defence was of denial.

(3.) The trial Court found that the evidence of panch witnesses docs not fully tally with the evidence of the Food Inspector Hazarilal Jain (P.W. 1). However, the learned trial court relying on the evidence of the Food Inspector has found that the required sample was obtained from the respondent who has also admitted about the same. However, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for failure of the prosecution to comply with the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which is mandatory and on account of this lapse of the prosecution the respondent has been deprived of his valuable right to get the other part of the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory.