STATE OF M P Vs. BHARTU BAJLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against a judgment of acquittal recorded under sections 7 (1) and 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE prosecution story is as under : On 30th of November, 1986, at about 8 A. M. , the respondent Bhartu was found in possession of kowa. A notice was served on the respondent. A sample of 750 gms. was taken. It is the further case of the prosecution that this sample was divided into three parts. Each of these were separately put in a separate bottle and formaline was added to it. It was found that the sample was deficient inasmuch as the fat content was 11. 33% but the required fat content is said to be 20%.

(3.) IT be seen that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the sample which was taken was a representative sample. It is not indicated as to whether the entire eight kilograms of kowa was mixed up, and thereafter, sample was taken. However, what is more glaring is the manner in which the sample was taken. As to how, 750 gms. was weighed and how three samples were prepared stands unexplained. The prosecution has tried to bring on the record that the respondent had weights of 1 kg. , 2 kg. and 250/ gms. , and these weights were used for taking the sample. One can understand about there being 1 kg. , 1/2 kg. weights under the Weights and Measures Act. There is no provision for taking a weight of 250 gms. If this be the situation, then, it is difficult to conclude that the sample was in fact, exactly, 750 gms. In this view of the matter, this appeal is held to be without merit and is dismissed.