STATE OF HARYANA Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-6-1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karnal by which the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 off he Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) On 15-5-1983 at about 11-30 a.m. Government Food Inspector R. D. Goel (P.W. 1) accompanied by Dr. K. L. Sachdeva (P.W. 3) visited the shop of the respondent and found him in possession of cow milk weighing about 7 kgs. The Government Food Inspector disclosed his identity, served notice Exhibit PA on the respondent and then purchased for analysis 660 mls. of boiled milk on payment of Rs. 2.00, vide receipt Exhibit PB. The sample, as purchased, was divided into three equal parts and put in to three dry and clean bottles. Formalin was added to all the three bottles which were duly stoppered, labelled and wrapped in a strong thick paper and were secured by means of strong twine and sealed. The sample was taken in the presence of Dr. K. L. Sachdeva P.W. 3 and one Mool Chand. Sample memo Exhibit PC was prepared. It was signed, amongst others, by the respondent also. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, for analysis and the remaining two bottles were kept in the office of the Local Health Authority. According to the report Exhibit PD of the Public Analyst, the sample milk was found to be adulterated. It was deficient in milk-solids-not-fat to the extent of 23.5 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of this report Exhibit PD, a complaint was filed against the respondent.

(3.) Both the witnesses, whose evidence had been recorded before the framing of the charge, were recalled for further cross-examination. Besides their statements, the appellant examined Dr. K. L. Sachdeva P.W. 3 and Baldev Raj P.W. 4 Mool Chand P.W. was given up as having been won over by the respondent. All these witnesses corroborated the prosecution version.