LAWS(P&H)-1992-5-59

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

Decided On May 11, 1992
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
PRABHU DAYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUB Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, vide his order dated January 8, 1987, recorded acquittal of Prabhu Dayal in a case under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, State of Haryana has come up in appeal.

(2.) ON December 6, 1981 at 8.30 a.m. Prabhu Dayal was apprehended being in possession of 20 kgs. of cow's milk for sale. A sample of milk was purchased from him against payment of Rs. 2/- by the Food Inspector. As usual the sample was put into three dry and clean bottles wherein for main was added. The samples were sealed. Ultimately one of the samples was sent to the Public analyst and on receipt of the report it was found that the sample was not up to the prescribed standard. It contained milk fat 5.1% and milk solids not fat 6.9% Complaint was filed in Court and Prabhu Dayal was prosecuted. Two witnesses were produced by the prosecution. PW1 Boota Singh, Government Food Inspector and PW 2 Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Medical Officer. The accused pleaded innocence. However, he did not lead evidence in defence. The Judicial Magistrate relying upon the judgment of the Court in State of Punjab and another v. Jagan, (1986) 13 Cr. LT 174 held that the statement of the Food Inspector became suspicious with regard to the fact of stirring of the milk to make it homogeneous before taking the sample and thus acquitted Prabhu Dayal.

(3.) IN the light of the decision aforesaid the acquittal of Prabhu Dayal could not be ordered merely because the factum of stirring of the milk was not mentioned in the complaint and in fact it was not so ordered though it is the contention of Shri Sunil Gour. The perusal of the judgment shows that the statement of the prosecution witness was taken to be suspicious on this material point of mixing of the food-article (milk) before the sample was taken. In other words Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not consider it appropriate to rely upon the evidence of two witnesses produced on this material aspect.