STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DALIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Punjab has instituted this appeal against the judgment dated 13.8.1991 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 29.7.1988, at about 12 noon, Shri Dhani Ram, Food Inspector, under the supervision of Dr. S.P. Jagat, D.H.O., Hoshiarpur, inspected the shop premises of the accused/respondent situated in the Court premises, Hoshiarpur. The accused/respondent was having in his possession about 15 litres of unindicated boiled milk contained in a big Patila for sale to general public. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the respondent and after serving a notice Ex. PA on the respondent, intended to purchase the milk as sample for analysis. The Food Inspector made the entire bulk homogeneous before purchasing the sample and then purchased 750 mili-liters of milk against payment of Rs. 3.90 paisa, vide receipt of Ex. PB. The purchased milk was then divided in three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. The sample bottles were sealed as per procedure contained in the Act. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh for analysis and the remaining two sample bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Vide report Ex. PD, the Public Analyst found the sample milk to be deficient by 13% in milk fats and as such complaint, Ex. PE, was lodged against the accused/respondent.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. After the close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed false implication. He next submitted that the sample was not taken in his presence and that the milk was not meant for selling but for preparing tea to be served to his customers. In defence, he examined DW.1 Shri T.S. Sohi, Advocate, who proved the defence versions set up by the accused.