DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this revision against the judgment dated 16th April, 1977, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1977, whereby he maintained the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7(1), read with Sec. I6(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as found by the trial Court, and while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000.00, awarded thereunder modified the sentence of jail, from R.I. for 1 year to R.I. for 6 months.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this application which are no longer in dispute are that on 26-5-1976 P.W. 1 Suresh Chandra Sharma, took a sample of cow-buffalo milk from the applicant for purposes of analysis. After completing the formalities regarding the sample as required by the law and the rules, he sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who as per his report Ex, P-5, found the fat contents to be 6% and solid non-fat 7.54%. Thus in his opinion the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed. On these facts the applicant was prosecuted, which on trial resulted in his conviction.

(3.) Though the learned Counsel for the applicant has raised a number of grounds in support of this revision after going through the evidence on record, in my opinion this revision deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the sample of milk purchased from the applicant was not taken by the Food Inspector P.W. I Suresh Chandra Sharma in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 11(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, according to which except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, a duty is cast on the Food Inspector to divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits. According to this provision the 660 ml. of milk prescribed as the approximate quantity for purposes of analysis should be obtained by the Food Inspector in one bulk in a container and, after adding formalin, has to be divided then and there into 3 parts. Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 specifically provides that samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. In the present case P.W. 1 Suresh Chandra Sharma has in his cross-examination in para 11 clearly admitted that before purchasing the sample he did not carry any container or any measure of his own to take the sample in a bulk. On the contrary he has clearly admitted that he took 200 gms. of milk 3 times separately from the measure of 200 gms. only and then straightaway put it into the bottles. This procedure adopted by him is not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 11(b) of the said Act. It was necessary for the Food Inspector to take the entire sample in one bulk and thereafter only to divide it equally in 3 bottles after adding formaline. Thus in the present case there is a clear violation of the mandatory requirement of law of which the benefits should be given to the applicant for the laches of the Food Inspector.