STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar dated 16th of September, 1986, whereby Uttam Singh (respondent in the present appeal) was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, according to the complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Food Inspector, are that on 5.7.1984, he along with Dr. Rajinder Singh Saggu, District Health Officer and Dr. M.S. Pannu, Medical Officer, intercepted Uttam Singh near Octroi Post, Daburjit, Amritsar, and at that time he had in his possession 12 Kgs. of cow's milk meant for sale contained in Dohna. After disclosing his identity as Food Inspector to the accused Dr. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, served notice in form VI and then purchased 660 M.L. of cow's milk and paid Rs. 2/ - to Uttam Singh as its price. Sample of milk was taken and divided into three equal parts, bottled in three dry and clean bottles 18 drops of formalin were added as preservative in each bottle. All the three bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in a strong thick paper and paper slip bearing the signatures of the Local Health Authority were pasted on the wrapper of each of the bottles, which were further secured by means of a strong twine or thread and sealed with four distinct seals at the spot. Thumb impression of Uttam Singh was taken in the prescribed manner under the Act so that the slip and wrapper carried a part of the thumb impression. One bottle of sample and memorandum in form VII was sent in sealed packet to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Bathinda whereas the container of the remaining two samples along with copies of memorandum in form VII were sent in a sealed packet to the Local Health Authority, Amritsar on the same day. Copy of the memorandum on form VII and impression of seal used to seal the packet were sent separately to the Public Analyst. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst through Local Health Authority the sample of milk was found deficient by 35 per cent by milk fat and by 30.6 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard in milk solids not fat for cow's milk. On the basis of the said report the Food Inspector filed complaint in the Court.

(3.) AFTER his appearance in the trial Court on the request made by