SATRUGHNA BEHERA Vs. PURI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act no. 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Prosecution case is that the petitioner was carrying adulterated milk for sale in Puri town on 15 -6 -63. The defence was that the milk was not being taken for sale and there was no adulteration. The learned Courts below concurrently found that the milk was adulterated.

(2.) MR . Harichandan advanced two contentions : -

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Food Inspector (P. W. 2) complied with the provisions of Sections 10 and 11. Formalin was added as a preservative to the milk in compliance with the provisions of Rule 20. The first attack is that Rule 18 was not complied with. The argument is based on the evidence that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was not separately sent to the Public Analyst. Reliance was placed on AIR 1951 Nag. 191, Dattappa Mahadappa v. Secretary, Municipal Committee Buldana, AIR 1964 Guj. 136, State v. Shantaben and 31 Cut L T 1008 : (AIR 1966 Ori 188). These decisions lay down that prosecution must establish that the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was sent separately to the Public Analyst and that he compared the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impressions received separately as enjoined upon in Rule 7 (1). The proposition in its bald form is correct and cannot be questioned. These decisions, however, did not examine whether in the absence of any direct evidence of the aforesaid facts, the Court can come to a conclusion that Rules 7 and 8 were complied with, with reference to the report of the Public Analyst submitted in form No. III prescribed under Rule 7 (3).