STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BHOLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 05.11.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby the complaint filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, the 1954 Act') against respondent Bhola Singh, has been dismissed. Brief facts of this case are that on 27.05.2000, at about 8.00 am, Shri Manoj Khosla, Govt. Food Inspector along with Dr. S.K. Sinha, intercepted Bhola Singh, a milk vendor, on a bicycle at Amloh Road, Khanna, who was found in possession of about 50 kgs. cow milk, meant for sale for human consumption. After disclosing his identity and serving notice in Form VI, the complainant demanded sample of cow milk. Before purchasing milk, it was made homogenous by stirring with a plunger in a drum and then 750 mls. milk was purchased on payment of Rs. 7.50 paise against proper receipt. Sample was divided into three equal parts, put into three dry and clean glass bottles, which were stoppled tightly, labelled and wrapped. Signatures slip of Local Health Authority bearing seal No. 85976 and code No. RKS/2000/60 was pasted on each sample length wise, covering top and bottom of the sample and adjoining its end. Spot memo. was prepared. One sample along with memo. in form VII with specimen impression of seal in a sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst through Malkiat Singh, Class IV employee and another sample seal was separately sent to the Public Analyst through the same messenger. The remaining two sealed parcels with a copy of Form VII in sealed packets, were deposited with Local Health Authority on the same day. As per report of the Public Analyst, the contents of sample contains pre added formalin and found to be unfit for human consumption and adulterated.

(2.) AFTER securing presence of the accused, pre charge evidence, consisting of statements of complainant Manoj Khosla, Food Inspector (PW1), Malkiat Singh, Class IV employee (PW2) and Raghbir Singh, Sampling Clerk (PW3) were recorded. Finding a prima facie case, the respondent was charged for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act. The aforesaid PWs appeared in the dock for their cross examination after charge.

(3.) HOWEVER , he did not produce any evidence in defence.