STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts material for the disposal of this appeal are these. On 25-11-1971 the accused respondent Rameshwar was carrying milk for sale. Fida Hussain Qureshi Food Inspector (P.W.1) purchased milk from him, after service of the required notice on the accused. Thereafter he observed the necessary formalities as required by the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by the rules framed thereunder. The sample of milk purchased from the accused was then got analysed by the Public Analyst, who according to his report (Ex. P. 14) found that the fat contents were 3.4% as against 5% and the solid not fat contents were 7.594% as against 9%. In his opinion, the sample analysed by him did not conform to the standard given with regard to milk by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The accused was then, on these allegations, prosecuted for an offence u/s 7 read with section 16 of the Act and tried by the Additional District Magistrate, Dhar on the aforesaid charges. As the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and adduced no other evidence. The defence of the appellant was that of denial of the charges but did not forward any specific defence. The learned Magistrate found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 with three months rigorous imprisonment in d fault.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order of conviction, the accused filed an the Sessions, Judge, Dhar.

(3.) The view of the learned Sessions Judge was that the prosecution failed to prove that the milk sold by the accused to the Food Inspector was adulterated. The reasons which prevailed on the learned Sessions Judge were that there was no evidence that the milk which was purchased by the Food Inspector was the secretion obtained after complete milking of an healthy milk animal that it has not been shown that incomplete milking of such an animal or even of a weak or infirm but undiseased animal is prohibited by law that it should have been proved from the report of the Public Analyst that the milk analysed by him contained added water and in contravention of Rule 44(b) of the Rules and that on these grounds the accused was entitled to be acquitted.