STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present respondent Jagdish was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind on basis of a complaint instituted by the Food Inspector for having committed an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The learned trial Court acquitted him of the charge framed against him. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come to this Court in appeal. It may be mentioned here that the complaint was also against Avinash Chander, but the learned trial Court discharged him.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that on January 18, 1979 Summer Singh Yadav Food Inspector (P.W 1) visited the shop run by Jagdish and Avinash Chander at 3:10 p.m. Dr. R.S. Garg, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jind was accompanying the Food Inspector. The respondent was found in possession of 1-1/4 kgs. of unindicated milk for sale. The Food Inspector obtained a sample of milk in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. On analysis by Public Analyst, it was found to contain only 5.7% of milk fat as against 6%. As the milk was unindicated, therefore, Public Analyst treated it as buffalo's and opined that the milk fat was 5 percent deficient in the sample. The accused was accordingly prosecuted. The defence was that the accused was running a tea-stall and though the milk in the vessel was unindicated, it was cow's milk. The learned trial Court held that on analysis, it was not possible to determine whether the milk was cow's or not and, therefore, the representation made by the accused that it was cow's milk should be relied upon and as the minimum prescribed standard for milk fat in cow's milk is 4 per cent and in the present case, the milk fat was found more than the prescribed standard, therefore, the milk could not be said to be adulterated. Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

(3.) WE are of the opinion that the above argument has force. Both Sumer Singh Yadav, Food Inspector (PW 1) and Dr. R.S. Garg have stated in cross-examination that the accused did not indicate at the time of sale of milk that it was cow's milk. In fact, as noticed earlier, it is also not the plea of the accused that at the time of sale of milk for analysis, he had told the Food Inspector that it was cow's milk. Ex PA is FORM VI which was singed by the accused and the detail of the sample of food purchased for analysis, by the Food Inspector is given as "U/Milk". Ex. PB is the receipt which was signed by the accused when he received the price of milk taken for sample.In this receipt also, milk is described as "U/Milk," (the letter 'U' appears to stand for un indicated milk). If the accused had disclosed at the time of taking of the sample of milk that it was cow's milk, then he would not have signed the said form and the receipt. Hence, in such circumstances it will have to he held that the accused had sold un indicated milk to the Food Inspector.