STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TILAK Raj, a confectioner of Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) made with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Shri D.S. Chhina, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. He was held not guilty and was acquitted vide judgment dated October 7. 1982 which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by way of this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that on October 21, 1981 Dr. S.S. Bhinder having the powers of Government Food Inspector along with other doctors inspected the shop of the respondent at about 8.25 a.m. The respondent was having 121 kgs. of cow's milk in his possession which meant for public sale. The Food Inspector served a notice on the respondent and purchased 660 mls of cow's milk on payment of Rs. 1.85 vide receipt Exhibit PB. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put in dry and clean bottles. The bottles wore scaled according to rules, after eighteen drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. One such scaled bottle was sent to the public analyst while the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public. Analyst on analysis found that this sample contained milk fat 4.8% and milk solids not fat 5.9% and thus the contents of milk solids not fat were deficient by 30% of the minimum prescribed standard. A copy of the report was sent to the respondent after a complaint was filed against him in the Court.

(3.) THE learned trial Court acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the respondent was prejudiced in his defence as provisions of Section 13(2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been duly complied with, inasmuch as the respondent had not been disclosed the name of the Court where the proceedings had been initiated against him. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that these findings of the learned trial Court were erroneous as there was no violation of the provisions referred to above. The respondent was informed well in time that the prosecution had been launched against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. No prejudice had been used to the respondent because at Gurdaspur only the Chief Judicial Magistrate had been given the powers to try complaints under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act relating to Gurdaspur Sub Division. This submission of the learned counsel does not hold good as the respondent, who was an illiterate person, was not supposed to know as to which of the Judicial Officers was authorised to entertain such complaints. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of Section 13(2) are mandatory and are to be strictly complied with and any non-compliance would vitiate the trial. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 reads as under :-