STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned trial Court under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) SAMPLE of milk purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent was found to be sub -standard. Milk solids not fat was found to be 7 percent deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. The learned Magistrate while relying on 1980(1) FA C. 432 (Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab) and 1977 F.A.C. 237 (Teja Singh v. The State of Punjab) acquitted the respondent He also observed, that non -compliance of Section 13(2) and rule 9 -A of the Act has vitiated the proceedings since the rules are mandatory. This. aforesaid two authorities have been over ruled in Criminal Revision No. 1294 of 1981 (Gopal Dutt v. The State of Haryana) decided on 27th July, 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 1980 decided on 3rd March, 1982. So for as the non -compliance of Section 13(2) and Rule 9 is concerned, these rules are also held to be directory and not mandatory by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana, 1981(2) I.L.R 513.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent also, in all fairness, conceded that on the aforesaid grounds acquittal by the Magistrate was not justified but he pointed out that in the spot memo. Exhibit P, 6 prepared by the Food Inspector, the sample purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent was need the Serial No. VSL/78/6, where the report of the Public Analyst Pertains to some other sample bearing Serial No. vsm/78/6 and thus the conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of different sample which does not relate to the sample prepared at the spot by the Food Inspector. Similar matter also came up in Criminal Appeal No. 163 -DBA of 1981 decided on 27th January, 1983 wherein it was held that even if the report submitted by the Public Analyst is to be read in evidence as relevant piece of evidence, it should be pleaded and in all respects the particulars given therein must indicate that the report relates to the sample in respect of which the prosecution has been launched. Since the same discrepancy occurs in this also, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt to the respondent. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in this appeal. Consequently) the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.