STATE Vs. BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On 19-5-1979, the Food Inspector took a sample of milk from the respondent. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, who reported on 30-5-1979 that the- sample was adulterated. The Food Inspector filed a challan on 27-10-1979. Thereafter on 17-12-1979, the intimation (Ex. P 6) was given to the respondent that the sample taken from h m was found adulterated by the Public Analyst The trial Magistrate convicted the respondent. On appeal by the respondent, the appellate Judge has acquitted him of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave.

(2.) On the facts stated above, the respondent was intimated of the report of the Public Analyst after 7 months of the taking of the sample. It is true that even in such a case the respondent has to show that the prejudice was caused to him on account of the delayed notice to him. However in the present case the Public Analyst found that the milk fat in the sample was 5.2% when the standard prescribed for is 3.5%. But the solids non fat were found deficient. They were found 7.358%. While according to the standard prescribed they should be 8.5%. Thus, there was a small deficiency in the solids non fats. The appellate Court committed an error in the aggregating the solid fats and the solid non-fats and in holding that the milk was not adulterated. The milk in the present case was adulterated but the deficiency was marginal and intimation of the report of the Public Analyst was sent after 7 months. Considering all these facts, it is not a fit case in which interference with the acquittal of the respondent is called for in this appeal.

(3.) I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the respondent.