LAWS(MPH)-2007-1-65

STATE OF M. P. Vs. SUKHLAL

Decided On January 25, 2007
State Of M. P. Appellant
V/S
SUKHLAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was preferred on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh through Food Inspector being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.9.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No. 592/ 82 acquitting to the respondent from the charge punishable under section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short "the Act").

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant V.K. Shrivastava being Food Inspector posted in the respective area for the purpose of sampling the food substance under the provisions of the Act. On 17.1.1982 at about 11:20 o'clock in the morning he intercepted to the respondent at village Lughawara while he was carrying the mixed milk of buffalos and cows for selling the same. After giving requisite notice for the purpose of examination he purchased 660 ml. milk from him for which after payment of consideration a receipt was also taken. The same was sealed in three parts with official seal and signature of such officer, witnesses and the respondent. The seizure memo by mentioning the entire procedure adopted by him was also prepared. Subsequent to it two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Seoni while one sample was sent to State Public Analyst along with Form No. 7, from where the authority received the examination report. According to it, the seized milk was not found as per standard and norms prescribed under the Act. According to the opinion of expert the samples does not have the standard laid down under the Act. Besides this it was also alleged that he was selling the milk without having any requisite licence. The requisite sanction for prosecution against the respondent was taken from the competent authority and a complaint was filed against the respondent.

(3.) WHILE arguing the appeal Shri Pramod Choubey, learned Government Advocate assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds :