INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court convicted the respondent of offence under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him thereunder to suffer R. I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default further R. I. for 11/2 months. On a appeal being filed by him a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by his judgment delivered on 14-2-1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1 980 acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the respondent was deprived of exercising his right under Sec. 13(2) of the earlier Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which was amended in 1976. The Indore Municipal Corporation, therefore, after obtaining leave has filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated, in brief, thus the Food Inspector P. VV. 1 Bajrang Singh Tomar, purchased 660 mis. of cow's milk from the respondent who is a milk vendor on 19-2-1973 for purpose of analysis after giving notice, paying price and preparing the panchaxna. He divided the sample into three separate bottles equally by adding formalin, sealed them and sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst who has per his report Ex. P. 4- dated 23rd Feb., 1973 found the same to be below the prescribed standard as milk fat was found to be 5 per cent and milk solid not fat 7.5 per cent. Thus the solid not fat was found to be less than the prescribed limit. On these facts a challan was filed against the respondent on 28-6-1973. The respondent, after service of notice which took about 20 months, put in his appearance before the trial Court for the first time in Oct., 1974.

(3.) The learned trial Court relying on the evidence of the Food Inspector and also relying on the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P. 4 convicted and sentenced the respondent by negativing his defence that no sample of milk was actually taken from him. The learned lower appellate Court, on an appeal being filed by the respondent, acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that as service of notice on the respondent was effected very late in the trial Court, when the respondent appeared in the trial Court in Oct., 1974 the sample taken on 19-2 1973 must have deteriorated and become unfit for analysis even though one part of the sample, namely one bottle was also given to respondent who is a villager, though he found that the Food Inspector was a validly appointed Food Inspector and that he had actually taken the sample of milk from the respondent.