THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25.6.1985, PW-1 Shri S. L. Lamba, Food Inspector alongwith one Dr. S.S. Sharma was going in connection with the collection of samples of Food. At about 9.45 a.m. the accused while carrying cow's milk in two drums on bicycle was intercepted by the said officials near I.T.I. College, Jalandhar Road at Hoshiarpur. PW-1 Shri S.L. Lamba served a notice in from VI upon the accused expressing his intention to take sample of the milk and the said notice was signed by the accused and attested by Dr. S.S. Sharma also. The milk is stated to have been stirred and made homogeneous in one of the drums with the help of measurement of one Kg. Then 660 ML. of homogeneous milk was purchased vide receipt Ex. PB, signed by the accused and attested by aforesaid Dr. S.S. Sharma. Rs. 1.83 was paid as price of the milk purchased and the milk purchased was divided into three equal parts and put in three, clean and vary bottles. 18 drops of formaline were added in each sample bottle as preservator. The bottles were then stoppered, labeled and securely fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper, secured by means of a string twins. Seals were put on each sample. In short, samples were prepared after completion due formalities as required under the law. Spot memo Ext. PC was also prepared by the Food Inspector. One sample was deposited with the Local Health Authority through Kewal Krishan for onward transmission to the Public Analyst Punjab Chndigarh alongwith memo and specimen impression of the seal used on the sealed packet. In due course, the Public Analyst analysed the sample sent to him and found the milk adulterated vide reported Ext. PD.

(2.) COMPLAINT Ext. PE dated 13.1.1985 was filed in the Court. The complaint having been filed by a public servant, the accused was summoned without examining the complainant. On the appearance of the accused, statement of Shri S. L. Lamba, Food Inspector was recorded before framing of the charge. The learned A.P.P. tendered Ext. PH report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory and closed evidence for consideration of charge. The trial Court framed a charge for an offence publishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused was afforded an opportunity for further examination of the Food Inspector Shri S.L. Lamba (PW-1). PW-2 Onkar Singh, Clerk of the office of the Local Health Authority was also examined. The prosecution closed its evidence without examining Dr. S.S. Sharma (PW) being unnecessary.

(3.) SHRI S. L. Lamba (PW-1) has corroborated the contents of the complaint filed by him. He also deposed for the various steps taken by him for taking the sample of milk in possession of the accused and in due course getting it analysed having been sent through the office of Local Heath Authority. His statement made in conformity with the allegations in the complaint need not be discussed in detail. However, the fact remains that his statement as a complainant is the only piece of evidence produced before the trial Court for seeking conviction of the accused alongwith report Ext. PH given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that provisions of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act') having not been complied with inasmuch as, no effort was made to call and join one or more persons to be present at the time of taken action in terms of clause (a) of Sub-section (1), Sub-Section (2), Sub-Section (4) or Sub-Section (6), as required under said Section 10(7) of the Act. The trial Court also was of the view that the milk was not properly stirred to make it homogeneous before taking the sample as is apparent from report Ex. PH of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, wherein milk fat has been found as 6.2% i.e. much more than the prescribed standard of 4% but milk solids not fat had been found marginally deficient i.e. 78%. Against this order of acquittal, the State has come up in appeal which is being disposed of by this judgment.