STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 17th August, 1979 PW 2 Dr. Satpal, exercising the powers of Food Inspector, intercepted Balwant Singh respondent who was carrying 12 kgs. of cow's milk, contained in a drum for sale. Dr. R.C. GArg was accompanying Dr. Satpal. Dr. Satpal disclosed his identity to the respondent and after observing the necessary formalities, purchased 660 millilitres of cow's milk against payment. The sample of milk was divided into 3 equatal parts and put into 3 neat and clean bottles. Other formalities adding preservative, wrapping and sealing were also performed by Dr. Satpal. The requisite memos were also prepared which were signed by respondent. One bottle of sample, along with form No. 7 having the seal impression of the seal used was sent in a separate packet to the Public Analyst through a messenger. Other formalities prescribed under rules were also complied with. The remaining two samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority. On receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report Ex-PE to the effect that the fact contents of the sample were deficient by 20 percent. Dr. Satpal filed complaint Ex. PG in Court.

(2.) AT the close of the prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he did not sell milk and on the day in question, he had come to meet his relations and was falsely implicated in this case as the actual person who was carrying a drum had run away after leaving the same.

(3.) IN the trial Court, during argument, the respondent did not appear to have disputed the factum of taking sample from his milk. The only argument advanced on his behalf is that Court was that the provisions of Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and Rule 9-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred as the Rules) were not complied with, learned trial Court relying upon Amar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1981 P.L.R. 216 and some other rulings held that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9-A of the Rules were mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiated the trial and consequently, acquitted the respondent. The State of Punjab has come to this Court in appeal.