STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sample of cow's milk purchased from the respondent by the Food Inspector Dr. K. M Mohan P.W. 2 on analysis was found to contain fats to the extent of 32%. The statute requires that it should have been 4%. On a complaint made by the Food Inspector the respondent was tried under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act). He was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate, inter alia, on the grounds that :-

(2.) THE State of Punjab has come up in appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 2-4-1981 passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) ON the second point also the learned trial Magistrate seems to have committed an error. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was fit for analysis. Formalin is added to the milk to act as a Preservative. The adding to the sample of 18 drops instead of 20 drops as laid down in rule 20 of the relevant rules does not make much difference so long as the sample retains its original characteristics and is capable of being Analysed. On this point the Public Analyst is the sole judge of the matter and his opinion should be given due weight. In State of Kerla Etc. Etc. v. Alaserry Mohammed Etc., Etc., 1978(2) Supreme Court Reports 820, a question arose that when the Food Inspector did not purchase the quantity fly of the Food-stuff for analysis as was envisaged under the relevant rule, whether the action of the Food Inspector. should be taken as lying outside the purview of law or not. The court ruled that since the Public Analyst was of the view that the sample supplied to him was sufficient to enable him to perform the analysis, a minor departure from the ruled could not be regarded fatal to the prosecution case. The rule was held to be directory. On a parity of reasoning we hold that rule 20 of the relevant rules is also directory.