UNION TERRITORY Vs. BISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, is directed against, the judgment dated 14. 4 1987 of Shri Krishan Kant Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 16. 1. 1984. at about 4. 45 PM, Shri O. P. Gautam, Food Inspector, went to the shop of the respondent in Sector 8, Chandigarh. Ten kilograms of boiled cow milk was found lying in the kitchen of the shop. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity in the presence of DWI Bharat Bhushan and service of notice Exhibit PA in the prescribed proforma upon the respondent, purchased 700 MIs. of boiled cow milk on payment of Rs. 3. 50 paise from the respondent. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three bottles. The requisite quantity of formalin was added as preservative. The bottles were then stoppered, labelled and sealed in accordance with the rules. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, who on analysis, opined that the milk solids not fat was 8. 1% as against the prescribed standard of 8. 5%. There was thus a deficiency of 5% of the minimum prescribed standard. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, complaint Exhibit PE was filed in the Court for prosecution of the respondent On the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector, the respondent was charged under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteraation Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that the milk in question was lying in a Patila with a thick layer of Malai over it and that the Food Inspector removed the Malai portion on one side and without mixing the milk, took the sample of milk in the jug, which had earlier been washed. Then the Food Inspector washed the bottles and poured the milk in question into bottles. Further, according to him, the milk was kept in the kitchen of the shop for preparing Rasgullas and it was not meant for sale as such nor was it lying at the sale counter. In his defence, he has examined DW1 Bharat Bhushan, who had earlier been eited as prosecution witness but was given up by the Food Inspector, and DW3 Amarjit Singh, who supported his (respondent) version. The court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, accepted the prosecution version and disbelieved the plea of the respondent and as a result sentenced the respondent to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned judgment acquitted him of the change.

(3.) WE have heard Shri R. S. Rai, Advocate for the appellant and Shri H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate, for the respondent, and have gone through the record. In our opinion, there is no ground to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.