MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHOPAL Vs. HAYAT KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, in Criminal Case No. 1018 of 73 by judgment dated 6/12/79 convicted the respondent under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. l6(J)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for selling adulterated milk. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default three months simple imprisonment. Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 79 by judgment dated 5/12/80 set-aside that conviction and sentence. Hence, the present appeal by the complainant against that acquittal.

(2.) Complainant's case was that on 20/12/72 Food Inspector G.K. Verma (P.W. 1) purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk from the respondent who was a licensed milk vendor. The price of the milk was given to the respondent. The purchased milk was divided in three equal parts and each part was kept in a clean glass bottle. 18 drops of formalin was added in each bottle. Each of the three bottles was duly labelled, marked, fastened and sealed. One of the three bottles was delivered to the accused, the other was sent to the Public Analyst vide memo dated 20.12.72. A copy 1 hereof together with a specimen impression of the seal was also sent. The third bottle was deposited in the office of the Municipal Corporation along with the copy of the said memo. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 22.12,72 (Ex. P-6) opined that the sample of the buffalo milk does not conform to the standard prescribed.

(3.) At the trial Food Inspector G.K. Verma (P.W. 1), Ishwarlal (P.W. 2) and Iftkhar Ali (P.W. 3) were examined on behalf of the complainant. Of these, Iftkhar (P.W. 3) denied that any sample had been taken in his presence. He stated that Inspector Verma had told him that the accused is being challenged for throwing cow-dung etc. in the NALI. He admitted his signatures on Ex. P-4. He was cross-examined on behalf of the complainant. The respondent in his examination denied the allegations. He did not examine any witness in defence.