NAGAR PALIKA, SHEOPUR KALAN Vs. MOOL CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sample, purchased by the Food Inspector, on being found to be adulterated as per the Public Analyst's report, the respondent accused was put up for trial for the commission of the offence, as stated at the out-set. The trial Court, after considering the Food-Inspector's own evidence, found that Food Inspector had committed several irregularities and had committed contravention of the various provisions of the Act and Rules, framed thereunder, and, therefore, the respondent accused was acquitted. It is noticed that the following two particular grounds or acquittal are such that the order of acquittal has to be necessarily uphold:-

(2.) Food Inspector Shyambihari Singh has candidly admitted, during the course of his cross-examination, that at no time what-so-ever he had supplied any copy of the Public Analyst report to the respondent accused. Therefore, failure to supply the copy of Public Analyst report to respondent accused had obviously caused prejudice to him by depriving him of the further opportunity to get the other part of the sample analysed by the higher authority, viz., Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Thus, in the present case, non-compliance of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, having caused prejudice to the respondent accused, the order of acquittal has to be sustained on this sole ground alone. This apart, although normally the endorsement on Public Analyst report to the effect that specimen impression of the seal and the sample had, both, been received by him separately and not together, would have been sufficient to raise a presumption regarding proper compliance in this regard. But, this presumption stands dislodged by the Food Inspector's own evidence, wherein, surprisingly enough, he has deposed to the contrary that the simple and the specimen impression of the seal had been sent together and not separately. Contravention of this rule equally entitles the respondent accused to acquittal. Suffice to say that the queer hostile conduct of the Food Inspector himself is beyond this Court's comprehension. Acquittal, hence, being proper, calls for no interference. In the result, thus, the appeal, preferred by the Municipality, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and the order of acquittal is maintained. The bail bonds are stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.